486 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



to assume the form, and, if we may judge from current criticism, 

 is quite generally understood to have the form, that because the 

 value of land increases without effort on the part of the land- 

 holders as the community grows, therefore the community has 

 earned such value, and may justly take it for common purposes. 

 In that form the argument is fallacious beyond question." 



Land, he shows, is subject to decrease as well as to increase of 

 value, and other kinds of property increase or decrease in value 

 quite independently of the owner's exertions, merits, or demerits. 



The second economical reason why land should be singled out 

 and its holder made to bear a burden from which the owners of 

 other sorts of property are exempt, as stated in the quoted para- 

 graph, is " because property in land being qualified in the way 

 proposed, poverty will be abolished," etc. No mode or process by 

 which poverty is to be abolished being furnished, we are at liberty 

 to infer that, if a marked addition were made to the land-tax all 

 over the country, the poor would soon find themselves in easier 

 circumstances ; and that if successive additions were made, they 

 would become more and more prosperous ; and that when the 

 whole rental value had been taken, there would be no poor people 

 anywhere. 



Now, taxes on land are paid by land-owners (I believe that Mr. 

 George agrees to this). The proposition then is, that if land- 

 owners were required to pay into the public treasury as much as 

 they could by any possibility pay, other people would be so much 

 benefited that even the poorest people in the world would be in 

 comfortable circumstances. 



The only way that this great change can be brought about is 

 by the abolishment of all other taxes. I do not undervalue the 

 relief that would accrue to industry from the abolition of indirect 

 taxes. I hold that it should be the first step toward the elevation 

 of the poor man, and the bettering of his condition, to let him 

 have and enjoy what he earns all of it, except just sufficient to 

 keep him watchful of tax-eaters and tax-thieves. 



But suppose that Divine Providence should bestow upon us 

 rulers who could carry on government without any taxes what- 

 ever. "Would that dispensation abolish poverty ? Those who 

 think so are bound to tell us how. 



The single-tax philosophy does not propose to constitute a fund 

 for general distribution. If anything should be left over after 

 defraying all necessary expenses of government, the residue is to 

 be applied to the common benefit and delectation through free 

 libraries, music halls, picture galleries, higher education, etc. 

 There is to be no alms-giving, because there are to be no poor. I 

 take it that the utmost good to be derived from the exemption of 

 all others than land-owners from taxation would be gained equally 



