Plugging the Single Tax

I am anti-State because I am anti-monopoly, and the State is a form of monopoly. And I am anti-monopoly because I am anti-coercion. And I am anti-coercion because I believe in things like human dignity and freedom. And I believe in human dignity and freedom because I believe in the Golden Rule, do unto others as you would have done unto you. And I believe in the Golden Rule because I'm selfish.

Anyway, getting back to the monopoly part. I suspect that land monopoly is inevitable, and that the State is more or less inevitable. And the best thing to do is mitigate its negative effects and maximize any possible benefits without inflicting harm on others. Better to do that than pretend that it doesn't exist just because I think it shouldn't exist. We'd be better off to use whatever means to reduce the overall level of coercion in society.

I'm on a normally non-political e-mail list in which the subject of taxes came up, with the predictable responses that a) we're overcharged, and b) we should be grateful for what taxes provide. I wanted to make a few points, but settled on just one for now. I wrote with a clear conscience, since I wasn't the one who brought up the subject:

I had a couple of other comments, but because of
length I will go to the most important one:

To borrow from Homer Simpson, who was speaking of alcohol, "To taxes: the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems." That's basically true. For every "good" thing government does, the costs and the means by which it is paid for often does more harm than the overall "good" that government does. Taxes on wages, capital, purchases, and property improvements discourage those very things. Taxes, rather than being the "price we pay for civilization," are actually an impediment to its growth.

Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, and John Stuart Mill agreed on one point, which was also expressed by the Articles of Confederation, the constitution of the United States that existed for eight years before the current Constitution was illegally drawn up. How was the Union to be funded?

" All [...] expenses that shall be incurred for the common defense or general welfare, and allowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed
out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the several States in proportion to the value of all land within each State [...]."

They had the right idea, picked up by Henry George in the late 19th century. George's solution was to not tax anything at all except land values (land meaning not just dry surface but all natural resources). As William F. Buckley, a mostly closet supporter of the idea, described it, the owner of a vacant lot adjacent to the Empire State building, and the owner of the Empire State building, would pay the same tax. You
would see a rush for landowners who currently hold on to vacant land while waiting for its value to appreciate, to either develop it or sell it to people who will. Jobs will increase. Ghettoes will see construction booms. The cycle of speculative bubbles
and busts would end. And if you want to build a deck or remodel your home, you won't pay additional taxes on your improvements. If you make a zillion dollars a year and live on a thousand squarefoot plot in Nowhere, Nebraska, you'll pay almost no tax, even while your wealth circulates into the economy, helping others. Every non- landowner would be freed from the hassle of paying income and sales taxes.

And the dilemma of "liberty vs. equality" would end.

Even when the people have been burdened by other taxes and unnecessary regulations, the idea of taxing land more and improvements less has worked wherever it's been tried, from several cities in Pennsylvania and Australia, to the "Asian Tiger" economies.

Life, liberty, happiness,

James Leroy Wilson