Why the single tax?

By Josep Soler i Corrales of Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain
( Translated from the Spanish)

The answer to this question, which often confronts us, may be summarized by the saying,
"To each his or her own" - that is, to the person whatever belongs to that person - and, to society, whatever belongs to society.
If no one should be deprived of what is his or hers, then clearly taxes are robbery - legal, but still robbery.  Therefore we urge their reduction until (in their present form - ed.), they can be terminated entirely.  This goal is rational, convenient and possible.

The question of Services
Since ancient times, there has been the false belief that citizens must revere and serve the state.  From this there arise the honors and benefices that are showered on rulers (ex.: "Hail to the Chief!" - ed.).
If one thinks about it well, rulers as well as people who work under their directions, are only individuals to whom society has delegated the functions of governance.  They would be neither more nor less distinguished if they were to perform those of carpenters or journalists.  With their labor, if well done, they perform the same task that all of us do - that is, to work so that society can function.  The official organs should be respecting and serving the citizenry, not the other way around!
To receive services from the state is a natural right of every citizen, without having to pay tribute for it.  The following refection illustrates this point:

Would it not be true that the discovery of penicillin had more value for society than anything Dr. Fleming could have paid for in taxes during his whole life?  With his work, had he not already contributed enough to society?  Furthermore, there were those who assisted him in his laboratory, and the cook who prepared his meals, without whom the doctor would have had to attend to all this and would not have been able to dedicate himself to his research.

The same may be said of any other kind of work.  Thus it is that anybody who works contributes directly or indirectly to society, and thus pays for whatever services have been received from that source.  This is a practical example of the "law of division of labor".

Payment for Public Expenses
Because of the large populations in the great cities, governmental costs are enormous.  At the same time, the presence of so many people augments, the earnings of capital and labor, thus making land values much higher.
In rural areas, public expenditures are much less than in the big cities; and the earnings of capital and labor are also diminished.  Land values are correspondingly low.
In desert zones there is no public expense, and the land is without value.  But if someone does have a plot of land there, and one day a nucleus of population forms thereon, soon the value of it will shoot upwards in direct proportion to the number and prosperity of the inhabitants.
This demonstrates that it is society that creates the value of land, so that such value belongs to society; and the parallelism that always occurs between land values and public expenditures is another indication that these values are, by natural law, what ought to be the source for the payment of public costs; and not taxes (on production - ed.), as the case now!

Foolishness or Rationality?
It is serious enough that taxes take money away from the people; but it is much worse that by reducing production and making it in large measure more difficult, the many fiscal burdens cause deterioration in the quality of life and, in retaliation, the outbreak of labor conflict and strikes.
When present-day taxes (on production - ed.) are replaced by a single tax on unearned land values, its collection will cost much less, fiscal fraud will be rendered impossible, and no one will hold onto lands either badly utilized or not utilized at all, much less for speculative purposes only.

The New System:  How and When?
The "how" is easy.  It would neither cause nor require great anguish, because it can be accomplished gradually.  It would be sufficient to have a public assessment of all lands, without including improvements (buildings, installations, agrarian cultivation, etc.).  Such assessment should be revised, also publicly, each year; and, in proportion to reduction in current taxes on production, collections on land values would be increased.
When can this happen?  The unending calamities in capitalist and socialist economies should induce clear thinking and honest politicians to support the new system - which, being scientific, is politically neutral.  Also, political figures should support it when they realize that it can be the only plan capable, not only of attracting votes, but - much more important - of guaranteeing the success of their governmental involvements.  All this would come to pass, because we would finally say good-by to labor strikes, poverty, and all the evils that derive therefrom--thus celebrating, finally, prosperity for everyone.  What more could a politician hope to achieve?
J. Soler i Corrales