A Statement on Tax Policy

Jackson H. Ralston

[A letter by Jackson H. Ralston to the California State Board of Equalization.
Reprinted from Land and Freedom, March-April 1936]

Gentlemen:

On March 10, removing the State Capitol so far as you are concerned (at whose expense?) from Sacramento to Death Valley, at the latter place you passed resolutions broadcast throughout the State "vigorously opposing" what you termed a "Single Tax initiative" on the November ballot. You have also resolved that the repeal of the State sales tax would deprive this State of such an amount of money during the next biennium as would threaten the "integrity of our public school system and require the levying of a ruinous ad valorem tax on property."

I would be the last to question the constitutional right of any one or all of your members to proclaim as loudly as you might care to do so your want of acquaintance with economic law and its inevitable workings. When, however, you gentlemen gathered together as a state board of equalization undertake to do the same, several questions arise in my mind which I submit to you for solution with as much respect as the circumstances of the case permit.

Is there anything in the laws of the State of California which make you an advisory commission to the voters of the State upon the subject of taxation? Is there any reason why you should enforce upon the people your more or less ill-digested opinions in the hope that, dazzled by the prestige of your office, they will be led to vote against the interests of the immense majority?

Are you able to cite a single recognized authority upon the subject of sales taxation who will defend such a system?

Do you know, individually and collectively, that even the Controller of the State has declared publicly as well as in correspondence, that the sales tax is not helpful to the small home owner, as of course it is not to the non-property owner, while he at the same time says that it is beneficial to the large holder of lands?

What excuses have you, collectively, for undertaking to advise the less fortunate classes of the State of California to vote against their own interests? Might not such advice be called a piece of simple impertinence?

Again I am inclined to wonder whether you know the meaning of the words Single Tax which you so glibly, and I may properly add, so inadvisedly, denounce. If you know the meaning, then you known that the amendment in question, while supported by many of the arguments which favor the outright Single Tax, does not propose the taking of all land values for public uses, but only such as are necessary, to replace taxes withdrawn from improvements, tangible personal property, and objects needed for public consumption.

Is it any part of your duty to attempt to excite prejudice against such a measure as this, which will relieve every non-property holder who, nevertheless, is and must be a taxpayer, and practically every one of the small householders of the State, transfer the burden of taxation which is crushing them, to the great owners of landed wealth created by the whole community and amounting to very many billions?

Is there any justification whatsoever for your allowing your statistical bureau to create hobgoblins as to the loss of property to ensue upon the adoption of the amendment for the purpose of persuading the immense majority of the people of the State to vote against their own interests? Why should you allow its chief to be a little Orphan Annie Kay to deceive the superstitious?

Are you not conscious that the measures you have taken as a body and through your so-called statistical bureau have been aimed at conserving the interests of the great landed wealth of California in the hands of its rich owners?

Are you excusable, much less justifiable, in undertaking to use the time which belongs to the State to engage in propaganda against the best interests of the community as a whole?

Have you not learned that the schools have created and are maintaining land values far in excess of school costs, and that these and not business, necessities and industry of the people should pay the expenses of education?

I refer again to the first question, and desire earnestly to know by what authority you as a board are undertaking to advise the voters, denying at the same time your right to give any advice as a board, whether in accord with my own ideas or opposed to them.

I ask information in the foregoing respects as at least an appreciable taxpayer in the State of California, and would be glad to know if it is not time for you to resume your administrative duties, rather than undertake to act in an advisory capacity to people whose needs you so manifestly do not understand.