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.