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 appropriation
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.
