Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 71

Recapitulation

Recapitulation.

It will not be necessary to deal again with the first seven chapters, which contain a general description of the Single Tax proposals, positively, negatively, and by contrast. A great deal of controversy in the past has been caused by misconceptions of what is intended, and "country settlers' have been erroneously warned that they alone are intended to bear taxation. It may reasonably be hoped that some of these misapprehensions will be removed by the direct and plain statements made in the above-named chapters. It is proposed to tax no improvements, to allow no exemptions, and to impose no graduated or absentee tax. It would not disturb freehold titles.

With Chapter VIII. the argumentative portion of the pamphlet begins, and with Chapter XII. the "Existing Central Fault" of the present land system is reached and dealt with. This fault is stated to be the "Private Monopolisation of Ground Kent." This is the point round which the battle must ultimately be waged after the opponents of the Single Tax have become convinced that misrepresentation and denunciation have had their day, and must be replaced by serious and deliberate criticism. The advocates pro and eon. must ultimately aim at convincing the public mind, on the one hand, that the "ground-rent fund" is properly a thing to be retained by inheritance or purchase by one section of the people; or, on the other hand, that it should not be so dealt with. Single Taxers make the latter assertion, and say that ground rent should always have formed the public revenue, and should never have been seized by a section of the people as personal income. This is the great issue in the question. This "recapitulation" will be purposely brief, in order that it may emphasize this point, and not draw the attention of readers upon any details, as if they were of any special importance.

It will only be necessary, therefore, to briefly run over the points of the argument against this "private monopolisation of ground rent." The first is, that its existence accounts for that of the "landlord and tenant" system. Under this the tenant labours under the disadvantages of (1) a limited term; of (2) a rent which is often higher than present value, owing to the land having a prospect of becoming more page 78 valuable; of (3) uncertainty as to how much rent may be demanded for a renewal of the term: and, finally, a difficulty in realising the value of such improvements as he may add to the land or premises. This leads to imperfect cultivation or inefficient use on the part of all tenants. It is therefore injurious to them, and to the general interests of the community, by cramping and stunting the best use of land in the production of wealth and conveniences.

A second objection to "private monopolisation" is that it gives to land a selling value. This makes it impossible for some, and very difficult for many more, to become landowners, i.e., to acquire the permanent use of land, subject to no man's caprice or dictation.

A third objection is that it makes it necessary to maintain public-services by levying taxes and local rates upon the whole people. If the ground-rent fund had not been seized by a section of the people and used as private income, it would have been the most fitting and convenient source from which to derive all public revenue. It is created by the presence of the whole community, and not specially by that section which receives it. It grows as the community grows, and therefore keeps pace with its increasing requirements.

A fourth objection is that it presents this curious anomaly: that while a large portion of the people properly pay for the use of land, a small portion do not pay for it;—further than this, and stranger still, the large portion pays to the smaller portion. If all who use land paid for it annually to the State, and if the State used the money to defray the cost of public services, the plan would be intelligible and reasonable, and must commend itself to the intelligence and sense of justice of an impartial visitor—say, from another planet. But to tell such a person that the world belonged to any section of its inhabitants, and that the other section gave to it a portion of all its produce in return for permission to work, would strike him as monstrous. Chapter XL shows very briefly that it was not always so in England, and never so in Palestine under the Israelites.

A fifth objection is that the results of the system condemn it as inequitable, and therefore inexpedient. Its operation leads, not only to reduced production, but to such an inequitable distribution of the proceeds that the weaker and less provident people fall into poverty. It prevents the bulk of wage-earners from obtaining the alternative opportunity of employing themselves. Again, the use of some capital in buying up land and thus securing a share of the ground-rent fund has, moreover, led large numbers of people to believe that the use of all capital was antagonistic to labour. This has led to serious disputes between employers and employed, and has withdrawn attention from the real issue, which is between landless people and landownership It should not be a personal antagonism, but a fight against a wrong system.

This "private monopolisation of ground rent," then, is the great issue. Single Taxers say that no elaborate system of purchase, of page 79 tenancy, or of regulation, can be effective so long as it conveys to the owner for ever, or to the tenant for his term of occupation, the increase of the ground-rent fund; or, on the other hand, fixes upon either of them the disadvantage of its possible future decrease. On the contrary, Single Taxers care not what detailed regulations are made about land tenure so long as the one reservation is made that all ground rent shall for the future be devoted to public revenue for the purpose of maintaining public services. When that is secured, nearly all of the present artificial restrictions, stipulations, and interferences will have become superfluous. No monopolisation of more than a man can use will then be attempted by him, no land will be left unused if there are enough people to require it, and no cultivation or use will be stunted by the imposition of conditions of uncertainty. They contend that no lump sum, and no annual payment fixed for a lengthened period, can equitably secure the possession or use of something which has such a very fluctuating value as land, and especially of something which is required by each succeeding generation. Especially would they denounce the latest development, which, only last year, made it possible for men, without even the need of purchasing it, to acquire the use of land for ten centuries ahead in consideration of paying an unalterable annual rent, fixed at a very low rate of interest upon to-day's value. This is the so-called "eternal" lease of the Ballance Land Act.

Various arguments used by the upholders of the present system, and some of their misapprehensions as to the effect of the proposed reform, have been dealt with. Amongst the latter, attention may with advantage be specially directed to the denial (1) in Chapter IX., that the taking of ground rent for public revenue would have the effect of entirely exempting a large section of the people from contributing: and (2) in Chapter XXVI., that the Single Tax would bring any additional burden upon land and thus lead to its disuse. It is argued, in addition, that ground rent is not a burden at all, but a payment for superior opportunity. The payment would be continued by tenants as at present, and would in future be imposed upon owners also.

Single Taxers charge the present system with hindering settlement in various ways, and they claim that their reform would greatly encourage and help it, and at the same time render all its operations more profitable, because more thorough. This claim must seem utterly paradoxical to people who have swallowed the assurance that the Single Tax would put the whole taxation upon land and landowners, and who believe that it would impose additional burdens on land. If either of these statements was correct, the result must be a hindrance to settlement; happily, they are both erroneous.

Finally, it may be pointed out that very little has been said herein to prove that there is a great difference between land and the products of man's industry. This is still frequently denied, and the consequent assertion made that both may with equal propriety be held as page 80 unrestricted private property. It is unnecessary to spend time over this point. The difference between the two things is emphatically pronounced by all our Land Acts. They restrict the amount of land which a man may buy or lease. In the case of leases, except the "eternal" ones, a provision for re-valuation is made, while residence conditions and stipulations for certain improvements are made in all. In many other ways we are told, as plainly as legal phraseology can put it, that land cannot be treated like the products of industry. Then, again, our Native Land Acts and our practice coincide in determining that on no account must natives be allowed to become landless. Reserves are set apart for them, which must remain inalienable as long as the Maoris exist. But if it is bad for natives to become landless, why not for men of our own race? The fact is, that it is bad for both races that any section of either should be so far divorced from the soil as to be obliged to make terms with another section in return for permission to work on their own account. By common consent no such laws are made to regulate the sale and purchase of commodities. The absence of such laws is proof positive that land and commodities do not, in the public estimation, stand in the same position. A fear is implied in all our Land Acts that men will try to get hold of land for other purposes than a personal use of it. What induces them to do so? We all know what it is, and may as well frankly avow it. It is the desire to turn it to a profit as an article of merchandise—as a future lottery prize—or to make an investment of it which shall bring in ground rent to us without any necessity for working. We know quite well that this is not in the public interest, and therefore we make laws against it; and we have to confess that they have not been effective for the purpose desired. It is high time that we should act honestly in the direction of our convictions, and state plainly that we will for the future remove the cause which prompts to such evasion. The way to do this is to take the coveted fund for public purposes.

It may be fitting to wind up by repeating some of the benefits which, it is claimed, would be secured by the adoption of the proposed reform:
  • It would secure to the user of land, and to every other worker, the full produce of his industry.
  • It would prevent land being held for the sake of receiving the ground rent.
  • It would prevent land being dealt with as a commodity, and as a
  • lottery prize of the future. It would prevent land being held out of use. It would make life to depend upon work.
  • It would afford to all the option of employing themselves or of seeking employment.page 81
  • It would make it easier for existing settlers to place their sons on land.
  • It would increase the beneficial use of land.
  • It would vastly add to improvements.
  • It would lead to increased production of conveniences and wealth.
  • It would prevent unjust distribution of these benefits.
  • It would remove all existing public burdens.
  • It would raise all future public revenue without imposing any bunions.
  • It would simplify and purify government, and greatly reduce the number of public servants.