Correspondence.

Feilding Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 3, 3 July 1896, Page 2

Correspondence.

I SINGLE TAX. TO THE EDITOR. Sm,— ln your issue of yesterday Mr Withy is reported to have said that " Single Tax advocates, while Socialism tried to prevent, freedom." Now, sir, Mr Withy objected to Mr Roots misrepresenting Single Tax, and then he himself proceeded to misrepresent Socialism. As a Socialist lam loth to attack the Single Tax, as I believe it is a real and genuine reform, and that legislation on Single Tax lines would greatly benefit the community. Considered merely as a fiscal reform the substitution of a single direct taxjpr the purpose of raising the required revenue, instead of the present system of a number of direct and indirect taxes would greatly simplify and reduce the the cost of collection. But, as a means of bringing idle land into use, and preventing the idle landowner from living on the industry of the worker, the benefits from the introduction of Single Tax would be enormous. I fear, however, that it would not produce all that Mr Withy claims $fer it. For instance, he asserts that it w"buld insure to the producer all that he produced. Henry George himself admits in " Progress and Poverty" that such men as the Duke of Westminster and the Astors would still remain immensely wealthy, as thoy would still possess the buildings, etc,, erected on their land, and they would stiU be able to cbarge a rent on these suflicient to provide for their repair and renewal, and leave a large surplus for themselves. Now, if these men will still be able to consume without producing, it follows that someone must produce for them, and, therefore, that someone would not receive all he produced. How the Single Taxers can defeud a man drawing rent from houses (which he never built) any more than from tbe land on which tbey are built I cannot conceive. They, of course, say that rent of buildings, etc.. is interest on capital, and, therefore, justifiable. Tc me it appears inconsistent to defend interest while condemning rent, as to me they are only different names for the same thins, i.e., tbe power of extorting something and giving nothing in return. Mr Withy claims that the Single Tax would give to all men access to land. I have a difficulty in understanding this, , as the present holders of land would still have the right to possess it so long as they paid the tax, which, Mr Withy says, wonld be less than the present rent charged by owners. That is to say that occupiers ot land would be in a more favorable position than they ara at present for retaining their present holdings ; so that wbere the land would come from to supply the present landless millions I fail to see. Although of course I quite understand that large quantities of land at present held idle by owners would become available, but this would be practically nothing towards meeting the demand, say, in such a country as England. Where'Mr Withy gets the idea that Socialism is antagonistic to freedom I do not know. Socialism in preventing the extortion of both rent and interest would really insure to the producer all that he produced. All would be free, as none would be able to interfere with another's freedom. Henry George himself says that, after all the benefits resulting from the introduction of the Single Tax shall have been realised, " the dream of the Socialist will then be possible." That is to say, that, after all, Socialism is the highest ideal of freedom. The ideals of the Single Taxers are a step, and a great step, towards that freedom for which we are all aiming, but it is, after all, only a step, as absolute freedom cannot be so long as the giant slave-holder " interest " exists. I am, &c, A. S. Dixon. Cheltenham, July lst, 1896.