The One Thing That Might Save Us All

W. Wylie Young

[A paper delivered at the 1979 Joint Georgist Conference, San Francisco, California]

Friends, we have a problem, a problem that is perennial, perpetual and universal. Although it may never be completely resolved, to disregard it, to resist attempts to solve it or to fail to even understand it and so intensify its negative effects will certainly lead to violence and endless grief for millions. It always has. Never in human history has its threat been more real. The problem is this: In every country in the so-called free world all human life is being threatened by gross inequity. We use the word "gross" to imply that the problem has grown to monstrous proportions. We are not referring to that degree of inequity due to the differing abilities of individuals, but a state of inequity that is beyond all reason and that should have no place in human affairs.

Those of us who have embraced the philosophy of Henry George know that there is a basic economic law, unknown to the average man, called the law of rent, and that failure to deal with it intelligently is the primary cause of world-wide gross inequity. The cure is basically so simple and the effects that might be achieved so revolutionary in character that it is politically impossible to apply it on a large scale. But the theory is sound and the only way for its proponents to present it is to dramatize it by indicating what full and complete application of the cure would do to turn everything around. A little bit of the cure would improve conditions a little bit, but total arid complete application would completely alter our way of life.

The cure involves a simple twist of the property tax policy whereby all taxes on buildings and improvements would be declared exempt and the entire burden of the tax be shifted to land value. Total and complete land value taxation would mean that the people in their corporate capacity would rent all land sites and land areas at rates based upon free-market worth. In other words the government would collect the full economic rent of the land and declare exempt all taxes on all labor products. Such a tax would so motivate the "do-ers" of the taxing area to justify calling it "Incentive Taxation."

Most people, without understanding the technical aspects involved and being completely acclimatized to the regressive effects of our conventional property tax system, literally choke on what at first blush appears to be a ridiculously simplistic answer to our seemingly complex social and economic situation. Those of us who believe in the cure are tempted to go overboard and to make overclaims which only serve to drive our habit-bound listeners to disbelief and scorn.

The almost universal failure to deal with the problem is not my chief concern today. Rather, it is aimed at the religious leadership of our times. Religious leaders in our Judeo-Christian institutions like to think they play a part in evaluating the policies which affect our lives, and in being selective in choosing those policies that might preserve, enrich and ennoble human life. If there is such a basic law as the law of rent, and if an intelligent property tax policy might vastly improve our way of living, good church people should see it as their religious obligation to institute tax policies that are fair and just to all.

If it can be proven by logic and demonstrated by actual experience that our conventional tax policy of taxing improvements heavily and land either lightly or not at all, results in the enrichment of a few at the expense of the majority, and that to persist in following such social misbehavior is bound to bring on a state of decadence and social corruption, who could deny that religious oriented people should become involved?

After all, our spiritual forefathers, the ancient Hebrews, did blaze a few significant trails. They did come up with the idea that God was one, and the God of all. As such they recognized his concern for human life; that he was eager that men should choose life and not death. No single fact in this world could be clearer than that there is far more death due to gross inequity than intelligent people should tolerate. Religious leaders should be more concerned about this than any other class or type. Nevertheless the track record of Georgists in dealing with them is, to say the least, extremely aggravating.

Surely there are very few leaders in the Judeo-Christian tradition who would agree with a young priest of a very high Episcopal church who informed me in lifty style that religion really had nothing to do with morality or religion. I was aghast, but so would be most clergymen of any Christian or Jewish congregation. We do seem to have caught the message of both the Old and New Testaments that righteousness, both personal and social, are all important in the eyes of God. What baffles me beyond all understanding is that so many clergymen can accept the gross inequity of our times without being challenged to figure out what they personally might do about it. Appalled, no doubt they often are, but challenged-very rarely. They may believe what their theological text books say, that man is a victim of "total depravity" and only the Grace of God can save him. How can they live in this wonderful world and not see that our modern brand of depravity has been aided and abetted by some stupid set of man made policies? Policies that could be changed.

There is a standard policy that the church, in its organized and corporate capacity should not formally endorse a specific economic or social proposal that has not yet become a part of the law of the land. Its primary function is to affirm belief in a sense of the reality and the constant presence of God and to encourage its worshippers to work toward the adoption of such concepts of worth and value as are in keeping with the nature of God. Thus will the preservation, enrichment and ennoblement of life be served. That is a big order. However, it does not exclude careful consideration of any proposal in pulpit or forum that might be presented as holding promise of achieving the desired state of preservation, enrichment and ennoblement.

If, in a rapidly changing world, it becomes apparent that by following conventional practices we are threatening millions with death, impoverishment and debauchery, the leadership of the church, lay as well as clerical, should raise its voice in protest. If particular causes and cures need to be clarified the facilities of the church should be used because salvation of human beings is the business of the church. Its business is not to implement the correctives. This will come as worshippers get the message and in their vocational capacities move to institute the needed changes.

Most clergymen who are concerned about social conditions and do speak out have to get their clues from journalists who have long since forgotten the little they ever knew about the law of rent. The colleges, where most of them got their education, were founded by men of quality, but they were funded by men of great wealth. Such men seldom like the ideas of Henry George although there have been a few notable exceptions. As a matter of courtesy men of wealth were invited to become college trustees and this proved fatal. No thanks for their determined influence, as they brought pressure to bear on professors who had become enamours with the philosophy of Henry George, we now have a whole generation, clergymen included, who couldn't tell if George was an American or an Englishman. Many of the clergy do have convictions about the validity of the more publicized correctives. A few might favor state socialism and fewer still the anti-God philosophy of communism. The great majority just try to figure out what the popular hit and miss ideas of current leaders might promise. That is enough to keep them and everybody else in a state of confusion. The modern let-the-government-do-it policies are hardly winning the day with the majority, but because of their built in sense of compassion, a product of New Testament research, they do seem to favor "government of amelioration", the government that plays the role of father and watches over those in the business world who have stumbled and failed. As for their having any faith in the ideas of Henry George, how could they? No one ever explained his proposals.

If there is a basic economic law which works to create gross inequity, and if a simple shift of the tax base would prove effective without our having to resort to government controls and bureaucratic guide-lines; and if such a policy would thwart those who want it all for themselves and guarantee that everyone with reasonable ability might enjoy a fairer share of what they help to produce; and if all this could be accomplished without abandoning free enterprise and allowing us to rely upon the computer-like aspects of the free market, what is so hard for good people to accept about that?

Many people who attend church regularly would not be surprised or even deeply moved to have their minister reveal that there are fifty million children across the world who are literally starving to death. It is easy to talk about the gaunt faces and distended stomachs of children in far off lands. That there are many children in our own affluent America will seldom be mentioned, but if something is actually said about such children few congregations would expect the minister to suggest anything but a special collection for the poor. It is high time that the people in the churches realize that the desperate needs of the poor have long since outrun the resources of the charitable. Something better than charity simply has to give!

Here is an oft repeated scenario. A good church member approaches his minister and says that careful research has been made and that it is scientifically accurate to say that be rescinding all taxes on buildings and improvements, and by putting the full burden of the property tax on land value alone, the economy would be so stimulated as to completely eliminate voluntary unemployment, so thai hunger would become a thing of the past. What is the usual reaction? Almost invariably will come that pitying look, the shrug of the shoulders and a nervous movement of the eye, as if he might be looking for some way out of this embarrassing situation. Then if our Georgist friend were to press his point and offer to form a study group, and ask for the use of a room in which to document his findings, what will be the response? "Well, I will have to consult my official board." When that is done more than one member of any board would say, "Are we supposed to be teaching religion or economics in this church? This could easily create friction in our ranks. We had better convey our regrets and suggest that the local library might oblige." Of course, it would be futile to ask the school board for the use of a room. Its members would use the familiar dodge that if they were to do this for a Georgist they would have to do it for socialists or communists; this, despite the fact that we pretend to believe in freedom of thought and open discussion; also, despite the fact that the majority of reform theorists recommend that we achieve security by sacrificing freedom, whereas the Georgist guarantees security by setting us free.

Granted we have not presented a single argument in favor of taxing land value instead of labor products. That sometimes takes a discouragingly long time for some people who have been sociologically conditioned to accept the unacceptable. We had no intention of trying to prove here what we believe. All we are doing now is stating the fact that there are many intelligent people across this country who have examined the arguments and who are convinced that if we want to retain our free enterprise system and at the same time give security and hope to millions who are already completely disinherited, we had better get on with reforming the property tax or watch our civilization disintegrate.

If no one has ever explained to you in vivid detail why cities rot at the core; why slums exists; why land does not have to be so expensive or living costs so high; why so many hard working people should have to live in crackerbox houses or build tiny homes on narrow lots; why thousands of small businessmen must pay exorbitant rents for ramshackle buildings so they can be near where the action is; why cities tend to sprawl over wide agricultural areas, forcing the extension of gas, electric, sewer and telephone lines past vacant or unused land; why young married people, not only have to pay inflated high costs for land and then ridiculously high prices for building materials in order to have a home, or why such fabulous prices are being asked for fifty year old houses because they are desirably located? To repeat -- if no one ever explained the why of all these commonly known facts, would you believe" us when we say it is all because of our asinine property tax policies which have led to sales, income, wage and capital gains taxes, all of which only tend to penalize us all for getting up in the morning and going to work.

If no one ever told you that voluntary unemployment need never exist; that welfare costs could be reduced to near zero; that young people could always plan for gainful occupation; that only the criminally minded would commit crimes and that they could be dealt with summarily; that police forces could be reduced; jails emptied; and judicial systems trimmed; that billions no longer be spent for public housing or urban renewal; that land speculation, a form of semi-respectable thievery, would case; that bureaucracies need no longer grant subsidies to people for not producing; that merchants need no longer serve as tax collectors; and that millions of wage earners need no longer tussle with their battered consciences as they fill out their tax forms; and then if you were told that you could help to bring all these things to pass could you honestly say that your religious convictions would not allow you to spend your time so uselessly? How in the name of God can good religious people shrug off such an obligation and by doing nothing team up with those who would turn heaven and earth to make it all impossible.

We all know good people, who just because they want to help their fellow man and in doing so to please God, spend most of their waking hours in some form of sacrificial service. Could we please God any more, or enjoy a sense of having helped to make life more livable for millions, than by dealing a death blow to those man-made rules that have resulted in world-wide gross inequity?