DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME 303 



reason of his having appropriated it. That part of the owner's 

 income which comes from the improvements which he puts 

 upon his land is virtually his own product, but that part which 

 comes from the original properties of the land is not his own 

 product: it is the result of his appropriation of a natural 

 resource and not the result of his own productive work. 



By way of illustration let us assume that a certain farmer 

 has an average income, over and above all expenses, insurance, 

 deterioration, etc., of $2000 ; that he and his family are doing 

 work which, on the market, would bring in $1000, and that 

 he has spent $10,000 in buildings, in improving his land and 

 stocking it with tools, machinery, teams, etc. If interest is 5 per 

 cent, then $500 of his income would be interest. Under these 

 assumptions the farmer's real earnings would be $1500. The 

 remaining $500 would not, under the assumption, be payment 

 for his work during that year, the $ i ooo covers that. Nor 

 would it be payment for previous work in improving his land, 

 erecting buildings, etc., the $500 covers this year's share of 

 that. What, then, is the extra $500 ? It is the rent of the land, 

 or the income which comes to him by reason of the fact that he 

 is in possession of a small section of the earth's surface. There- 

 fore, say the single taxers, while he has obviously earned his 

 $1500 he has not earned this other $500. 



The question at once arises, Suppose that the farmer has 

 bought the land from some one else, paying $10,000 for it, 

 besides another $10,000 for the buildings, improvements, 

 stock, etc. Is not the $500 interest on the investment in the 

 land as much his rightful income as the other $500 interest 

 on die investment in improvements ? It would seem so. At 

 any rate, the single taxers have never been able to satisfy a 

 majority of the voters that this is not true. The most that 

 can be said is that this farmer has made a mistake in pay- 

 ing another man $10,000 for land which the latter never 



