The Single Tax Campaign

Marion Mills Miller

[Excerpted from Ch. II, of the book, Great Debates in American History, published in 1913 by Current Literature Publishing Company, New York]

Henry George died on October 29, 1897, in the midst of a campaign for the mayoralty of New York, in which he was candidate of an independent party called "The Democracy of Thomas Jefferson." His opponents were Benjamin F. Tracy [Republican], Seth Low [Citizens' Union], and Robert A. Van Wyck [Democrat]. Mr. Van Wyck was elected. Mr. Low's and Mr. George's candidacies were in opposition to the two political machines, Republican and Democratic, and not to each other. Mr. George tersely summed up his position in a platform utterance as follows: "Mr. Low is a Republican reformer: he would help the people. I am a Democratic reformer: I would help the people to help themselves."[1]

During this campaign the present editor, who was secretary of his campaign committee, called Mr. George's attention to the "Letters on Taxation" by Edwin Burgess, showing him a manuscript copy of the letters which was the property of Joseph F. Darling, of New York City, who subsequently did much to secure the publication of the letters in England and Australia. Mr. George had not heard of Mr. Burgess, and was greatly delighted to learn that the single tax theory had been developed before his time and in a form so strikingly like his own, as this corroborated his claim that it was a fundamental philosophy. He asked to see the manuscript after the campaign was over. Two days later Mr. George died of apoplexy brought on by the labors of the campaign.

After Mr. George's death his son, Henry, published a work which his father was about completing when he entered the campaign. The book was broader than its title - The Science of Political Economy - being a treatise upon the author's entire philosophy, which he styled in the work as "The Philosophy of the Natural Order." The son also wrote a biography of the father, which was published in 1900.

The first national conference of single taxers, held in New York City on September 3, 1890, adopted the following platform, which, with minor alterations to suit the changing phases of politics, has been reaffirmed at the succeeding national conferences up to that held at Boston November 29 - December 1, 1912. Henry George drafted this platform.

The Single Tax Platform

We assert as our fundamental principle the self-evident truth enunciated in the Declaration of American Independence, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights.

We hold that all men are equally entitled to the use and enjoyment of what God has created and of what is gained by the general growth and improvement of the community of which they are a part. Therefore, no one should be permitted to hold natural opportunities without a fair return to all for any special privilege thus accorded to him, and that value which the growth and improvement of the community attach to land should be taken for the use of the community.

We hold that each man is entitled to all that his labor produces. Therefore no tax should be levied on the products of labor.

To carry out these principles we are in favor of raising all public revenues for national, State, county, and municipal purposes, by a single tax upon land values, irrespective of improvements, and of the abolition of all forms of direct and indirect taxation.

Since in all our States we now levy some tax on the value of land, the single tax can be instituted by the simple and easy way of abolishing, one after another, all other taxes now levied, and commensurately increasing the tax on land values, until we draw upon that one source for all expenses of government, the revenue being divided between local governments, State governments, and the general Government, as the revenue from direct taxes is now divided between the local and State governments; or a direct assessment being made by the general Government upon the States and paid by them from revenues collected in this manner.

The single tax we propose is not a tax on land, and therefore would not fall on the use of land and become a tax on labor.

It is a tax, not on land, but on the value of land. Thus it would not fall on all land, but only on valuable land, and on that not in proportion to the use made of it, but in proportion to its value - the premium which the user of land must pay to the owner, either in purchase money or rent, for permission to use valuable land. It would thus be a tax not on the use or improvement of land, but on the ownership of land, taking what would otherwise go to the owner as owner, and not as user.

In assessments under the single tax all values created by individual use or improvement would be excluded, and the only value taken into consideration would be the value attaching to the bare land by reason of neighborhood, etc., to be determined by impartial periodical assessments. Thus the farmer would have no more taxes to pay than the speculator who held a similar piece of land idle, and the man who on a city lot erected a valuable building would be taxed no more than the man who held a similar lot vacant.

The single tax, in short, would call upon men to contribute to the public revenues, not in proportion to what they produce or accumulate, but in proportion to the value of the natural opportunities they hold. It would compel them to pay just as much for holding land idle as for putting it to its fullest use.

The single tax therefore would -

1. Take the weight of taxation off of the agricultural districts where land has little or no value irrespective of improvements, and put it on towns and cities where bare land rises to a value of millions of dollars per acre.

2. Dispense with a multiplicity of taxes and a horde of tax gatherers, simplify government, and greatly reduce its cost.

3. Do away with the fraud, corruption, and gross inequality inseparable from our present methods of taxation, which allow the rich to escape while they grind the poor. Land cannot be hid or carried off, and its value can be ascertained with greater ease and certainty than any other.

4. Give us with all the world as perfect freedom of trade as now exists between the States of our Union, thus enabling our people to share, through free exchanges, in all the advantages which nature has given to other countries, or which the peculiar skill of other peoples has enabled them, to attain. It would destroy the trusts, monopolies, and corruptions which are the outgrowths of the tariff. It would do away with the fines and penalties now levied on anyone who improves a farm, erects a house, builds a machine, or in any way adds to the general stock of wealth. It would leave everyone free to apply labor or expend capital in production or exchange without fine or restriction, and would leave to each the full product of his exertion.

5. It would, on the other hand, by taking for public use that value which attaches to land by reason of the growth and improvement of the community, make the holding of land unprofitable to the mere owner, and profitable only to the user. It would thus make it impossible for speculators and monopolists to hold natural opportunities unused or only half used, and would throw open to labor the illimitable field of employment which the earth offers to man. It would thus solve the labor problem, do away with involuntary poverty, raise wages in all occupations to the full earnings of labor, make overproduction impossible until all human wants are satisfied, render labor-saving inventions a blessing to all, and cause such an enormous production and such an equitable distribution of wealth as would give to all comfort, leisure, and participation in the advantages of an advancing civilization.

With respect to monopolies other than the monopoly of land, we hold that where free competition becomes impossible, as in telegraphs, railroads, water and gas supplies, etc., such business becomes a proper social function, which should be controlled and managed by and for the whole people concerned, through their proper government, local, State, or national, as may be.

Beginning in the early nineties the Single-Taxers adopted the policy of securing their reform in separate States. Now the constitutions of the original thirteen States had a common provision which was, in essence, that all property should be taxed equally on the basis of its money value, and this provision was incorporated in the constitutions of the States subsequently admitted into the Union. Until it was stricken out it was impossible to apply the single tax to a district within the State, and hence the advocates of the principle agitated for home rule in taxation, which would permit any municipality or county to abolish the tax on any form or forms of property that it chose. With home rule adopted they felt confident that they could persuade the majority of the citizens of at least one district to abolish all taxes on labor products, such as personal property and improvements on land. They were even more confident that, after such abolition, the community would prosper at the expense of its neighbors which continued the old system of taxation, drawing from them manufacturers and laborers, and so inducing them, in self-defence as well as emulation, to follow its example.

Thus far this policy has proved unsuccessful, except in inducing increasing minorities in each State to advocate the single tax. In 1912 a referendum on the subject was held in Oregon and Missouri, and the single tax was defeated by considerable majorities. The new constitution of Ohio, adopted in 1912, specifically excepted change in the principle of taxation from those matters to which the referendum could apply - which would seem to indicate a fear on the part of the present majority opposed to single tax principles that it might shortly become a minority.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. Another utterance of Mr. George showed his political kinship to Thomas Jefferson, the great opponent of paternalism; this was: "It is not a function of government to save a fool from the consequences of his folly."