An address by a Georgist sympathizer: practical issues in Georgist thought

American Journal of Economics and Sociology, The,  Oct, 1995  by Michael S. Johnson

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

If an architect were to build a theater so that not more than one-tenth of the audience could see and hear, we would call him a bungler and a botch. If a man were to give a feast and provide so little food that nine-tenths of the guests must go away hungry, we would call him a fool, or worse. Yet so accustomed are we to poverty, that even the preachers of what passes for Christianity tell us the great Architect of the Universe, to whose infinite skill all nature testifies, has made such a botch job of this world that the vast majority of the human creatures he has called into it are condemned by the conditions he has imposed to want, suffering, and brutalizing toil . . . (72).

And he continues:

This, and this alone, is what I contend for - that our social institutions be conformed to justice . . . that he who makes should have; and he who saves should enjoy. (86).

There is no question that his was a moral argument. He viewed the ability of a few lucky persons to reap the rewards of land rent to be thievery, nothing less. Because George couched Progress and Poverty in the words of political economy, because it reads so much like Smith, or Ricardo, or Mill, we view him as an economist. He used economics, to be sure, but he was writing as a seeker of justice, not merely an observer or predictor of the human scene. My advice is to never forget that fact when reading George. Thus, I believe that Robert Andelson and James Dawsey head in the right direction when they adopt Henry George's theme of justice in their From Wasteland to Promised Land: Liberation Theology for a Post-Marxist World. I urge you to buy the book if you have not already. This is what Henry George is all about.

If the issue of justice and the alleviation of poverty does not permeate discussions of Georgists, I wonder from where the name of the organization comes. For example, consider the motives of those of us who argue in favor of land rent taxation. George makes the case that such taxation is desirable because such taxes are just. It is the right thing to do. It is not primarily because other taxes are bad - although George builds a solid case for that as well. George advocates land taxation because the return to the land belongs to the community, not to the landlord. To allow the landlord to keep the rent is to sanction theft.

Because this theme is often lacking in the debate on popular Georgist topics, I give you my second bit of advice: Why measure or debate whether a tax on land rents would be sufficient to fund all government activity? As much as Henry George really believed in a "Single Tax," in the United States at least, we have decided to let the expenditure side of the budget drive the need for revenues, not the other way around. In other words, we do not - and we will not - let the revenues obtainable from a single tax source, be it land rents or any other source, decide the level of spending. Like it or not, government activity today is far different from the end of the 19th century. The winds have shifted. I urge you to see how to integrate land rent taxation into a broader system of taxation, and to become less adamant about a Single Tax. Yes, other taxes are onerous, and yes, they are exploitative. But they fund services that many people want to see government provide. In Progress and Poverty, George essentially proposes a tax without any spending by government. The tax serves as an equity device, not as a source of revenues for public purposes. This is not particularly a problem if a redistribution scheme exists (e.g., equal dollars per person). However, it is natural to seek to fund public services with the proceeds of taxes - and there is absolutely no reason to expect or presuppose that land tax proceeds will match, exceed, or fall under the level of spending. Perhaps because I am not a true believer, I find the idea of land rent taxation much more palatable than the idea of a Single Tax.