Should 100 per cent of the rent be collected?

Henry George suggested leaving a percentage of rent to landowners, enough to induce them to continue holding their land. They would, then, collect the rent from tenants and turn over all but their percentage to the public treasury. Between 5% and 10% would be a reasonable commission for their services; thus there would be a 90%-95% tax on rent. This method, said George, would save the government the function of letting out lands.

By 1886, seven years after Progress and Poverty was published, Henry George was an international celebrity. New York City's United Labor Party drafted him as their Mayoral candidate in 1886. (They did so by securing, at George's request, 30,000 signatures calling for him to run!) George ran well, outpolling Theodore Roosevelt, but he lost (by means, probably, of an unfair count) to Abraham Hewitt, a Democrat drafted by the Tammany machine to put back the threat of George. Puck frequently lampooned George during this period. Here he is depicted hefting the Labor world, with nothing more to stand on than cloudy "theories".

Would rent be a sufficient source of public revenue?

The total rent of land in the United States has never been calculated. (Irregular assessment practices do not give the true value of land. Rent is also disguised in numerous ways: for instance, it figures largely in returns to stocks and bonds.) Some say that rent would be insufficient for total budgets, federal, state and local. But it is to be expected that the Single Tax would on the one hand produce great economies in government, and on the other hand result in greatly increased production of wealth, with an increase in all returns - rent, wages and interest. And so (if it does fall short at present) within a short time rent should meet all legitimate needs of government. There are those who say rent might exceed the needs of government. If so, the surplus could be used to wipe out the public debt and the balance distributed as a dividend to all citizens. In any case, even if the rent fund were not sufficient to cover the cost of all public services, if it is the most appropriate source of public funding it should be fully exhausted before other taxes are resorted to.

How would rent be apportioned?

With only one tax, how would it be divided between local, state and federal governments? One proposal is to collect all rent at the local level: the local governments would pass a percentage to the state governments, which in turn would pass a percentage on to the federal government. This is the method usually used between state and local governments when property taxes are levied by the state. It was also used by the federal government when it levied property taxes between 1789 and 1861, apportioned among the states according to population, as specified by the U.S. Constitution.

Another proposal is for each level of government to impose the tax directly on respective types of land - municipalities on land within their areas; states on land within their areas outside the municipalities, such as farm land; and the federal government on such natural resources as oil fields, mines, forests and waterways. In practice, this method is also partially observed.

There has been increasing debate in recent years over the disposition of transboundary resources. Debate is going on over nations' rights to claim minerals on the ocean floor. The control of rivers that flow through the territories of many nations is a deeply sensitive issue. The advent of global atmosppheric pollution has forced people to see the earth's atmosphere as a resource that is shared by all. Extending the concept of the public collection of land rent to the international sphere can provide a peaceful and progressive way of resolving intensifying conflicts over resource access and use. Treaties concerning common property in Antarctica, outer space, and the world's oceans have taken the first, halting steps in this direction.

Under the Single Tax, how would land values be estimated? How could you separate the value of the land from the value of the improvements?

In much the same way as it is done today by real estate dealers and appraisers. The value of land is customarily estimated simply by knowing its size and location. When a building is destroyed, land value remains. Frequently, the owner of the land and the owner of the building are two different parties.

If a person owns a city lot with a building on it, what would prevent another from bidding a higher tax than the first could pay, thus ousting him or her from the building?

Not all the images of George in the popular press were negative, though: This image was on the cover of Judge magazine during George's 1886 Mayoral campaign. Railroad magnate Stephen Jay Gould is shown gazing fondly at mementoes of a busy year of strike-breaking. He is about to get whupped by Terence Powderly, leader of the Knights of Labor, in a speech at the party's annual convention, in which he endorsed George -- who looks on approvingly.

The Single Tax is not a method of nationalizing land and renting it to the highest bidder. It is a method of taxation. It would not only hinder, it would prevent the unjust ousting of another from his building. The tax falls upon landowners in proportion to the value of their land. This value is determined by the real estate market - by the demands of the whole community - and not by occasional and arbitrary bids.

A rich woman has a large mansion; a poor widower has a small house on an adjoining lot with the same value. Is it right that they both pay the same tax?

There is no reason in justice why the community should not charge poor widowers as much for monopolizing valuable land as it charges rich women. In either case it is a special privilege which should be paid for. In our sympathy for the rare widower in this situation, let us not forget the hosts of widowers who not only do not live next to mansions but have no place to live but by some landlord's consent. They would find it much easier to get a place to live under the Single Tax than now.

Though some people have made money by owning land, haven't others lost? Do not the losses offset the gains?

Possibly; but what the land speculator loses, the community does not gain. What the land speculator gains, however, the community does lose. As between land speculation and the community, losses cannot be justly charged against gains. The taxation of land values, incidentally, will put an end to these "unearned losses" as well as to unearned gains.

Why single out landowners for taxation? Are there not other unearned incomes (as a work of art which increases in value)?

All incomes come from only two sources - land or labor. Land is not a thing of human production. People cannot live without access to land. In these two respects it is unique. No other "unearned income" compares with rent in importance. All other increases in value may be traced to a labor product as its source. A work of art may be unique, but unless it is stolen, its transfer from hand to hand is morally justifiable. And its ownership does not deprive any one of the means of life - or even of the means of creating a new work of art.

If someone buys land in good faith, under the laws by which we live, would that person not be entitled to compensation for individual loss if we taxed away the value of his land?

Even at present, if a landowner does not pay taxes, his or her land is confiscated by the government without compensation. Land grants and taxation are clearly matters of the general public policy; they are legislative and not contractual in character. Titles to land values and privileges of exemption from taxation are voidable at the pleasure of the people. The reserved right of the people to terminate grants of land value is as truly a part of every grant of land as if it were written expressly in the body of the instrument. Since Progress and Poverty was written, there has been a considerable body of public opinion in favor of land value taxation, and the proposal has been put into application in several parts of the world. Notice, therefore, has been served that there is an effort in progress to accomplish community collection of rent by proper methods. As this movement grows, people cannot be allowed to make bets that it will fail and then, when they lose their bets, to call upon the government to compensate them for their loss. Note too that land titles will remain. The land will be just as good as before - even better - for building or producing.