IOO

THE  A  B  C  OF  TAXATION

It  is  sometimes  said  that  if  land  owners  can  rightfully ­
  claim  ownership  they  are  entitled  to  all  the
ground  rent;  that  the  common  right  to  land  and  the
common  right  to  ground  rent  go  together.  How  can
this  be  true,  when  even  under  the  land  tenure  of
to-day,  which  is  that  of  ownership,  no  one  claims  that
land  owners,  as,  for  example,  those  of  the  City  of  Boston,
are  entitled  to  all  the  ground  rent,  but  only  to  that
part  which  is  not  taken  in  taxation.  Their  own  claim
falls  short  of  “all”  by  the  $10,000,000  now  yielded  up
in  taxation.  In  case  the  demands  of  taxation  should
be  twice  as  great,  would  they  be  any  more  than  now
entitled  to  “all”?  It  is  not  easy  to  see  how  ownership ­
  can  carry  with  it  as  a  necessary  consequence  the
private  appropriation  of  ground  rent,  because,  while
there  has  never  been  a  denial,  there  has  always  been
a  recognition,  of  the  sovereign  power  and  right  to  tax
the  land.
Private  ownership  of  land  is  no  injustice  to  anybody
to-day,  nor  has  it  been  at  any  time.  The  untaxed
private  ownership  of  land  value  as  it  exists  to-day  is
unjust.  This  does  not  mean  that  the  ownership  is
unjust,  but  that  not  to  tax  it  is  unjust.  An  absolute
ownership  in  land,  such  as  Henry  George  recognises
in  the  products  of  labour,  would  be  unjust,  but,  says
Mr.  Edward  Atkinson,  no  such  “absolute  ownership
of  land  is  recognised  in  the  law  books.”  Its  tenure
is  always  subject  to  taxation,  and  to  the  superior  right
of  eminent  domain.  Feudal  tenure  would  seem  to
have  been  a  rude  recognition  of  the  principle  that  the
beneficiaries  of  a  government  should  pay  the  expenses
of  government.
Henry  George  said,  in  1879,  “  Progress  and