SINGLE TAX. A tax designed to meet all or the principal needs of government, levied upon a single object of taxation. The single tax on the rent of land was introduced into general economic discussion about the middle of the eighteenth cen tury by the Physiocrats (q.v.), and was popular ized by Henry George (q.v.), particularly in his Progress and Poverty (1S79) and his speeches in the New York Mayoralty campaigns of 1886 and 1897. George advocated the abolition of all taxes upon industry and the products of industry, and the taking, by taxation upon land values, irrespec tive of improvements, of the annual rental value of all those various forms of natural opportuni ties embraced under the general term land.
Three classes of arguments are adduced in sup port of the appropriation by the State of eco nomic rent : ( 1 ) The ethical argument rests upon the theory of natural rights. Man, it is asserted, has an absolute, inalienable right to life, to equality of opportunity, and to private property. By virtue of the right to live lie may claim ac cess to those natural opportunities—land—whieh are necessary for the maintenance of life. This is an individual right. But land differs in fer tility and value. By virtue of the right of equality, then, men have a joint claim to the dif ference between the annual values of the worst and the better lands in cultivation; this differ ential value is economic rent and it belongs to the community. Finally, man has an absolute and inalienable right to the property created by his own exertions, and this property cannot be rightfully taken from him for any cause whatso ever. As the private appropriation of land was and is wrong, George held that neither the ac tion of the State nor the passage of time could justify it, and that in consequence no compensa tion could be claimed by existing landholders for the appropriation of land values. Single tax ers of course made frequent use of the familiar argument that economic rent is created by the community, not by the labor of the individual owner, and that in consequence it cannot in jus tice be appropriated by the owner.
(•3) The second general argument rests upon the economic theory of distribution. With some modifioations George followed the Ricardian the my of economic progress. (See Ricardo, under Po LITICAL ECONOMY.) With the increase of popula tion, George held, mankind is forced to resort to poorer and poorer lands in order to produce the necessary food supply. But as the margin of
cultivation is thus forced down, economic rent— which is the difference between the productivity of the worst and the better lands in cultivation— increases, and wages decrease, because wages in general are fixed by the income which can he earned by the occupiers and tillers of the free land which pays no rent. The share of capital in the product of industry, George also main tained, would follow the same course as wages, capital being in all essential respects simply labor impressed or congealed into matter. Wages and interest, therefore, rise and fall together, varying inversely as rent. Not only does rent increase with the increase in population, but every invention involves a further demand upon the soil for raw produce, and thus increases rent. Everything that lowers interest de presses wages and exalts rent; every new in crement of capital, being a demand for land, has the same effect ; the accession of every new laborer acts similarly; time that increases the population, science that stimulates invention, frugality that multiplies capital, in short mate rial Progress itself, under the regime of the pri vate ownership of land, is synonymous with Poverty. Hence the title of George's principal work.
(3) The third class George designated as the arguments from expediency. Some of the most important may be briefly summarized as follows: First, the appropriation of economic rent would yield sufficient revenue to defray all the legiti mate expenditures of government. On the other hand, the abolition of all other taxes would dis pose of a large army of tax gatherers, make the government simpler, and hence purer and less ex pensive. Secondly. it would enormously increase the productivity of wealth by removing the taxes upon capital, production, and consumption which now• repress or discourage industry, and by fore ing into use and cultivation the lands now held idle for speculative purposes. There could be no speculative holding of land for a rise in value if this value, when it accrued, would he appro priated by the State. Finally, the tax on rent could not be shifted, while it would preserve pri vate property in everything except land and pre vent socialism or the public management and operation of land. It is important to note that single taxers in the United States are in general rigorously opposed both to socialism and land nationalization.