In Defense of Old School Single Taxers

C.H. Nightingale

[Reprinted from Land and Freedom, March-April 1940]

Mr. L.D. Beckwith of Stockton, California, is never done with attacking "Single Taxers" of the "Old School", and challenging their theories and methods. These charges have, in large measure, been ignored, but the time has now arrived when we "Old Timers" should defend ourselves against, (1) the calling of offensive names, e.g., "Marxians", (2) the assertion that we have not advanced since 1897, and (3) against fallacies propounded by Mr. Beckwith.

As for point No. 1, I have been for 50 years, and more, an active worker in the Cause having for its object the State Collection of Rent, the Repeal of all Taxation, and the restoration of Free Trade conditions. Because I also hold that under the operation of this policy, interest (on investments) will die a natural death, I am branded by Mr. Beckwith as a Marxian! The claim is that Marx opposed interest, therefore (whatever my grounds for opposing it) I am necessarily a Marxian. Now Beckwith and Marx agree on some points (I will prove this if called upon to do so), therefore Beckwith himself is a Marxian! This is very poor logic.

As for No. 2, the fact is that all the "Old Timers", and the new timers for that matter, repudiate some of George's theories, amongst others his theory of interest, and this shows that Mr. Beckwith is again in error. What Georgean today supports Henry George in drawing a distinction between interest on "dead" capital and interest on "live" capital? George said that if interest had to do only with such things as planks and planes, "interest would be but the robbery of industry" (Progress and Poverty, page 129). As regards that theory I venture to say that all of the "Old Timers" have advanced since 1897.

Now for No. 3. Beckwith holds that land has not, and cannot have, any value. This I can refute with Euclidian precision, in 56 words as follows:

Brown goes to an island and makes a good living by using a portion of the land. Jones follows and finds he can only make a poor living by using the other land available to him. The difference between these two standards of living is RENT. Yet there are no social services rendered at the locations.

The simple and inescapable truth is that there are two factors in RENT, (a) services rendered at the location, (b) the natural quality, contour, climatic and other conditions, which give value to the land itself. These advantages may be obtained by the user of the land regardless of whether there are roads, railways, markets, fire services, police protection, water supply, sewerage, or any of the social services that community life calls forth. Let Mr. Beckwith deal with the Brown-Jones illustration above if he can!

Another question relates to the step-by-step method of State Collection of Rent. Mr. Beckwith states dogmatically that this plan is impossible, or at best impracticable. Again he is in error. We know, of course, that if a fixed percentage is written off the depreciating balance of an asset the asset value never entirely disappears. But merchants and business men (and I might add accountants, and I am one) know quite well that there is no difficulty in writing off the full value of any asset by the installment system. All that is necessary is to calculate your percentage on the original, or full value, and this could be done in the case of land just as well as it can be done, and is done, in the case of plants or buildings. Again Mr. Beckwith is in error.