HENRY GEORGE ON TAXES AND THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 2593, 23 February 1889, Page 1 (Supplement)

HENRY GEORGE ON TAXES AND THE RIGHTS OF PROPERTY.

Si'EAKTNTi in Glasgow lately Mr Henry Oeorgo said—All taxes which were in rettraint of the production of wealth were not merely stupid but morally wrong. They were not deniers of the rights of property ; they were sticklers for the rights of property. They held that there was a sacred right of property which derived its sanction from a higher law—a viaht of property on which civilisation was founded. (A Voice : "What is the right of property ?") It was this—that that which a man produced was his as against all the world. That was tin; foundation of the right of property. A house, a coat, whatever was the product of human labour, to that there was a e'ear title of ownership, beginning with the producer, and capable of being passed from hand to hand. They said that it was wrong, that it was immoral, for the community to impair that right of property ; that the natural reward of labour was that it should enjoy its products — that when a farmer ploughed a field and sowed it ho should be entitled to the crop, and to all the orop--that when a man got brick ;;nd lumber together and built a house, that house was his, and all the house, and that it was wrong for the community to step in and claim a ocitaiii percentage on its value, or take it from him altogether. It was simply leagalised highway robbery. So with everything else. They had no quarrel with any man because he was rich. If he could get rich honestly, let him go and get rieh. They held that all those taxes which were imposed at present were stupid and wrong and immoral. How then did they propose to raise their revenue ? Public revenues were necessary. They proposed to raise the public revenues from thi;ir natural source, There was a value that, unlike all the value created by labor, did not belong to the individual, but clearly belonged to the whole people—there was a value that could bo taken without lessening production, without hampering enterprise, without taking from energy and industry and thrift their natural rewards, without fostering monopoly, nay, a value which must be taken I y tho community for the use of the community if we would break up the worst ami most fundamental of all monopolies—that was, the value of land. The value which attached to bare land by reason, not of what the owner had done, but by reason of the growth and improvement of a community, was clearly created by the community, and belonged to the whole community. Tho tax on land values, no political economist would deny, was the most perfect of all taxes. It was a tax that could be collected with theleast temptation to corruption and with tho fewest officials, that imposed no impediment to production, that could be assessed in the fairest manner, and that could be collected with the least loss. Therefore the mere economic advantages of the substitution of that tax for all our demoralising and injurious taxes wore very great. Then, by taking this value, to land by reason of the growth and improvement of a- community for the use of a community, they would destroy the incentive to .syoauUtid.i They would duke, oil' the dog in tho inang-!i- who h< , ld land that li : j could n it u.-io iiiin.'ii:lf, and which h<; would not alluw anyoiio \:Ur. to use. New York was crowed togfthui in sumo parts more closely than in Glasgow—for the houses were

higher in the American city, and the people were without room, air, and light enough, and in conditions under which pure life was impossible. Was there land enough ? Why, half of New York consisted of vacant lots, and half of the men in the building trade were unoccupied. There was capital enough. The reason was that if you wished to build a house, you would find some owner to say, " You must pay me thousands of dollars." Mr Burroughes, a great manufacturing chemist of London, wished to establish a factory in New York. They ought to have welcomed him, They did not. He wanted a site near the Hudson and the railroad. There was a rotten peninsula jutting into the Hudson, and nothing on it, being in :i state of nature. It was to the advantage of the people of New York he should use that land. But it had an owner who wanted the modest sum of 150,000 dollars for it. Mr Bim-oughes then went to the East to a place for the grazing of cows, and the owner asked 120,000 dollars. These two men were simply holding the land as blackmailers. That was why they were crowded in New York, and why people were crowded in Glasgow. " Let Glasgow flourish by the preaching of the Word." What word did they preach in the citj where 40,000 families were living in single rooms ? If it were the Christian Word it must be the word that called upon every man who had a heart iu his breast to fight to abolish that state of things. A single tax would easily do it—a tax that fell upon the value of the land irrespective of improvement, that charged the man who was holding a vacant lot just as much aa for holding the land idle. That seemed to be the easy road on which they ought to move, getting behind the Liberal party and making it a Radical party. Every step they gained was an advance, and every step like buying out the land was a retrogression. Just think how much cheaper they would get the land if they taxed the landlords. In the city of London the ground values amounted to £400,000,000, and they bore a taxation of £500,000. The value of the houses and other improvements upon it amounted to £200,000.000, and they bore a tax of over £7,000,000. Was it any wonder that the people of London were crowded together ? What would be the effect if the seven millions of taxes were taken off the houses and put or; the ground values ? We would then take off the seven millions of a penalty for the building of houses without using it. Thus building lots would be cheaper and houses would CO up, and men in the building trade would find a brisker demand for the services. The Liberal leaders want to tax the ground rent a little. Go with them aud they would soon agree to tax them more. This was nothing new nor was it a Yankee idea, It was going back to a good old custom. But there were other monopolies than the monoply of land There was monopoly of capital. But men existed before capital but no man existed before laud. Out of the monopoly of land grew all other monopolies ; most of our social evils would melt away when the primary wrong had been removed.