God’s laws do not change. Though their
applications may alter with altering conditions, the same
principles of right and wrong that hold when men are few
and industry is rude also hold amid teeming populations
and complex industries. In our cities of millions and our
states of scores of millions, in a civilization where the
division of labor has gone so far that large numbers are
hardly conscious that they are land-users, it still
remains true that we are all land animals and can live
only on land, and that land is God’s bounty to all,
of which no one can be deprived without being murdered,
and for which no one can be compelled to pay another
without being robbed. But even in a state of society
where the elaboration of industry and the increase of
permanent improvements have made the need for private
possession of land wide-spread, there is no difficulty in
conforming individual possession with the equal right to
land. For as soon as any piece of land will yield to the
possessor a larger return than is had by similar labor on
other land a value attaches to it which is shown when it
is sold or rented. Thus, the value of the land itself,
irrespective of the value of any improvements in or on
it, always indicates the precise value of the benefit to
which all are entitled in its use, as distinguished from
the value which, as producer or successor of a producer,
belongs to the possessor in individual right.
To combine the advantages of private possession with
the justice of common ownership it is only necessary
therefore to take for common uses what value attaches to
land irrespective of any exertion of labor on it. The
principle is the same as in the case referred to, where a
human father leaves equally to his children things not
susceptible of specific division or common use. In that
case such things would be sold or rented and the value
equally applied.
It is on this common-sense principle that we, who term
ourselves single-tax men, would have the community
act.
We do not propose to assert equal rights to land by
keeping land common, letting any one use any part of it
at any time. We do not propose the task, impossible in
the present state of society, of dividing land in equal
shares; still less the yet more impossible task of
keeping it so divided.
We propose — leaving land in
the private possession of individuals, with full liberty
on their part to give, sell or bequeath it —
simply to levy on it for public uses a tax that
shall equal the annual value of the land itself,
irrespective of the use made of it or the improvements on
it. And since this would provide amply for the
need of public revenues, we would accompany this tax on
land values with the repeal of all taxes now levied on
the products and processes of industry — which
taxes, since they take from the earnings of labor, we
hold to be infringements of the right of property.
This we propose, not as a cunning device of human
ingenuity, but as a conforming of human regulations to
the will of God.
God cannot contradict himself nor impose on his
creatures laws that clash.
If it be God’s command to men that they should
not steal — that is to say, that they should
respect the right of property which each one has in the
fruits of his labor;
And if he be also the Father of all men, who in his
common bounty has intended all to have equal
opportunities for sharing;
Then, in any possible stage of civilization, however
elaborate, there must be some way in which the exclusive
right to the products of industry may be reconciled with
the equal right to land.
If the Almighty be consistent with himself, it cannot
be, as say those socialists referred to by you, that in
order to secure the equal participation of men in the
opportunities of life and labor we must ignore the right
of private property. Nor yet can it be, as you yourself
in the Encyclical seem to argue, that to secure the right
of private property we must ignore the equality of right
in the opportunities of life and labor. To say the one
thing or the other is equally to deny the harmony of
God’s laws.
But, the private possession of land, subject to the
payment to the community of the value of any special
advantage thus given to the individual, satisfies both
laws, securing to all equal participation in the bounty
of the Creator and to each the full ownership of the
products of his labor. ... read the whole
letter
Q3. What is meant by economic rent?
A. Gross ground rent -- the annual site value of land --
what land, including any quality or content of the land
itself, is worth annually for use -- what the land does
or would command for use per annum if offered in open
market -- the annual value of the exclusive use in
control of a given area of land, involving the enjoyment
of those "rights and privileges thereto pertaining" which
are stipulated in every title deed, and which, enumerated
specifically, are as follows: right and ease of access
to
* water, and
* health inspection,
* sewerage,
* fire protection,
* police,
* schools,
* libraries,
* museums,
* parks,
* playgrounds,
* steam and electric railway service,
* gas and electric lighting,
* telegraph and telephone service,
* subways,
* ferries,
* churches,
* public schools,
* private schools,
* colleges,
* universities,
* public buildings --
utilities which depend for their efficiency and
economy on the character of the government; which
collectively constitute the economic and social
advantages of the land which are due to the presence and
activity of population, and are inseparable therefrom,
including the benefit of proximity to, and command of,
facilities for commerce and communication with the world
-- an artificial value created primarily through public
expenditure of taxes. For the sake of brevity, the
substance of this definition may be conveniently
expressed as the value of "proximity." It is ordinarily
measured by interest on investment plus taxes.
... read
the whole article