THE SINGLE TAX.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 8881, 18 May 1892, Page 3

THE SINGLE TAX.

TO THE KIiITOR. Sir,—We note with pleasure that no less than four champions are tilting at Henry George in your issue of this morning. Three of these alone, however, demand our attention as we can safely leave Mr. Withy to dispose of his special opponent. The first point; in " E.W.'s" letter worthy of notice is his reply to our question —What would the single tax confiscate?—he replies that 'lit would confiscate the unimproved selling value of the land." Exactly so ; and what dees " the unimproved selling value of the land" represent? Does it not represent " the power of confiscation " (i.e., the value of the landlord's taxing-charter)? The landlord's title-deeds are merely taxing-charters, which enable him to live upon the labour of others. The true right of property is deduced from the fundamental right of each man to himself, from which follows the right to the exercise of his own powers, and to the fruits of such exercise. Unless, in this age of democracy, " E. W." is prepared to deny what Herbert Spencer terms "th law of equal freedom" he cannot upset these deductions. Whatever profit a man derives from the mere " ownership" of land, must be at the expense of others, since he, as a mere land " owner," creates no wealth whatever. \Vo cannot see the justice of social conditions which permit the existence of a class living in idleness ' on the labour of the rest of the community. When it is once clearly understood that labour is the sole producer of wealth, the utter impossibility of "compensating" the class which lives upon the labour of others, for depriving them of that privilege, will be ho obvious as to expose the absurdity of basing such claims 011 the plea of justice! When the workers of this planet refuse any longer to work for their present task-masters, how on earth aro they (the taskmasters) to be " compensated" for the loss of the power of living upon our labour, unless they can by some means obtain a draft upon the labour of some other planet ? The "presumptions" with which " Iconoclast" opens his letter are as wide of the mark as the " assertions" with which he " stated our case concisely" a month ago. That "single-tax" means "free trade" we cheerfully admit, and if "Iconoclast" thinks that prohibitive import duties, coupled with penal private taxation on the use of land, will foster industry better than free trade and free land, well, we can only say that it seems to us equivalent to saying that, a man can work better in fetters than with his limbs free ! Then " Iconoclast" tells us that a great deal of poverty is " caused by overproduction." Hear that, "yo scandalous persons, who produce too much !" At least the land " owners" are exempt from that reproach. We have thousands of "unemployed" short of everything needful for rational existence, craving work to satisfy their wants, and they are told that they " suffer from over-production," perilous jesting surely. What is there necessary to our well-being that we cannot produce in overflowing abundance if nothing but " labour values " were the legal tender, and the " raw material" were tree? But, so long as "land value" counts between man and man, so long labour will be defrauded, industry anarchical, and justice impossible. That the whole taxation would ultimately fall 011 the good lands is true; but that is simply another way of saying that it is the duty ot the valuable lands to bear the public burdens. We do not expect value from lands until they are valuable—i.e., have a iusing value. If a man is using valuable land, how will he be injured, as a producer, if the " selling " value were taxed out ol it? It would cost him nothing of his own earning if he wished to retain it, while all other laud, being equally free, he could (if ho wished) change his location at any time much more readily than if his holding were weighted with an iniquitous private land value, which is not real wealth, and which, in private hands, means illth to the community. We are sorry "F. 0." is not satisfied with the conduct of our meetings; but our consciences fully acquit us of any desire or attempt to "burke ' free discussion. That our arguments usually carry our hearers with us is, of course, not a matter of surprise or regret to lis ; but, if "F.C." thinks he can show us to be wrong, we shall be ippy to arrange a meeting in which he shall have the first hour all to himself, with the right to the " last word "as well; or, if our friends of the National Association are afraid to meet us on our own platform, we shall be most happy to meet tliem on theirs.— We are, etc., for the Anti-Poverty Society, Adam Kelly, Vice-President, F. G. Platt, Hon. Sec. May 9,189-2.