82 
THE A B C OF TAXATION 
double its value in spite of the old buildings upon it. 
Is it for such buildings as these that Boston builds its 
subways? 
One of the good things claimed for the single tax 
is that under it those genuine building syndicates 
which erect and improve buildings at their own 
expense for the benefit of the occupiers, may be 
expected to put a happy end to those alleged “ land 
improvement companies ” which exploit the land for 
the benefit of themselves, largely at the expense of the 
occupiers. 
When the palaces which insurance companies* build 
for their own investment are such shining examples of 
what the most carefully guarded capital can profitably 
do, how can these waste places in Cornhill be charged 
to capital? Capital would any day gladly undertake 
to pay annually for this whole square of land what it 
is worth for use, would pay for the present buildings 
their total worth, and would then equip the land 
luxuriously for business occupancy, asking in return 
only a secure title to its improvements. But when 
capital is asked to do this, as tenant, with no title either 
to land or improvements thereon, it declines to play 
against loaded dice, and business has to live in tents 
and log cabins because its best friend, capital, is forced 
to play the role of a seeming enemy. The malefactor, 
i. e., the evil factor, in the case, is the private appro 
priation of ground rent, which is like a check valve— 
the higher the steam pressure of public expansion and 
* It has been thoughtlessly alleged that the single tax would bring ruin to 
savings banks and insurance companies, by impairing the value of their 
land securities. Under any gradual adoption of the single tax this could 
hardly be a serious charge so long as investments are changed every three 
or five years, as is the custom of those fiduciary institutions.