I think Warren Samuels's last post is yet another illustration of his   
own view that "The discussion about taxing unearned increments is a   
splendid example of talking past each other, myopia, and the intrusion   
of ideology into analysis."  Thus, whereas I'd suggested that everyone   
who earns income should pay taxes, say 10 percent, Warren again writes:   
"Given that taxes have to be raised [you do not like that, but it seems   
a sensible place to start]..."  The "you" in the quote referring to me.  
  
My contribution was focused on Henry George's single tax proposal.  And   
it was in that context that I pointed out that those who seek to   
substitute that tax for all other taxes were attempting to take a   
free-ride on land owners.  Roger Sandilands's statement, "Return these   
community values to the community, and get labour and capital taxes off   
our back," says that so well.  Yet Warren doesn't recognize the point as   
such.  
  
I asked Roger to tell me what the difference between land and capital   
was that he thought I didn't know.  He didn't oblige my request.  I   
didn't think he would be inclined to suggest that capital is man-made   
while land is given by "nature."   That would be far too elementary, I   
thought.  Warren again hints at some difference between land and capital   
which, if I knew, would lead me to accept Georgists' land tax proposal.   
  He says, Roger's "articulation of the problem as the failure to   
appreciate the distinction between land and capital is incisive."   
Another case of deliberately talking past each other?  
  
Much too much has been made of the claim that the supply of land is   
inelastic.  Warren again asserts this: "Given the usual diagram, the   
supply curve [of land] is pretty much inelastic, i.e., vertical."  But   
carefully considered, the claim is incorrect.  Only the supply of total   
land may be fixed or perfectly inelastic, that is, excluding dredging or   
reclamation.  But land devoted to alternative uses -- farming, housing,   
playground, road construction, etc.-- is not so.  Thus, it is not such a   
clear-cut case that land is the most suitable object for taxation on the   
basis of elasticity of supply.  But note again that I'm not against   
raising taxes; everyone who earns an income should pay for the   
legitimate functions or services of government.  
  
John Laurent's summary of Henry George's diagnosis of the source of   
poverty in the world is quite clear: 'George ...  attributed poverty in   
the midst of _highly productive_ societies to the inequality created by   
huge land rents. This could not be morally justified, he argued. First,   
poverty itself was so distorting of human goodness, that it should not   
be tolerated if a remedy could be had (e.g., George, p. 461). Secondly,   
absolute private-property rights to land were wrong because "no one can   
be rightfully entitled to the ownership of which is not the produce of   
his labor [i.e., land]" (George, p. 336). Land, which is not produced by   
any human, is part of the common heritage of all. He said "the unjust   
distribution of wealth" (George, p. 342) was due to the "fundamental   
wrong" of land ownership.'  
  
It is such dangerous misdiagnosis of the cause of poverty that has led   
to some destructive and wasteful revolutions in several countries.  I   
tried to point out its obvious error by asking whether the people of   
Hong Kong (before unification) were wealthier than those in mainland   
China because there was more private ownership of land on the mainland.   
  I directed attention to the USA vs Russia.  We can go on with other   
obvious examples, like North and South Korea, former East and West   
Germany.  When one considers these examples, one hopefully can recognize   
the error of George's conclusion as summarized by Laurent: 'George   
concluded that "what has destroyed all previous civilizations has been   
the conditions produced by the growth of civilization itself" (George,   
p. 488). In nineteenth-century western nations, the obvious   
civilization-destroyer in his view would have been private appropriation   
of land rent (George, p.514).'  So let me repeat: Private ownership of   
land is NOT the cause of poverty in countries (or destroyer of   
civilizations).  And we will not get rid of poverty in the world by   
substituting George's single tax proposal for multiple taxes.  
  
In one sense, all this exchange is wasteful of time.  In another, it can   
be quite productive.  I have read more from and about Henry George   
recently than I had cared to do before.  I also have become more   
convinced of the error and danger of his single-tax proposal as the   
solution to poverty in nations.  And whiles some may believe that no   
minds are changed from these discussions on lists, I think quite a few   
minds really are changed.  But that latter is not of much interest to   
me.  I entered this debate only because, as I said, Pat wasn't reducing   
it to its essentials in order to have ended it sooner.  
  
James Ahiakpor