.
| U.S. -
Housing Handouts Creating New Class of Rich From the Idle |
| [Reprinted from the
Los Angeles Times, 12 January, 1960] |
Secretary of the Treasury Robert B. Anderson, who is rapidly becoming
the chief exponent of common sense in the Washington administration, is
mainly concerned, he says, with "sustainable economic growth - not
just any kind of growth - as the major goal of economic policy."
We may assume from what he has said on other occasions that "just
any kind of growth" would include huge federal handouts for housing
developments in cities, with all the inflationary consequences attendant
on that short cut to prosperity. For housing - residential and business
- is a major bulwark of our economy.
To anyone who chooses to look at the facts, it is apparent that lavish
federal expenditures are creating a new class of rich people who have
done nothing, but whose ownership of land is inactive or speculative. A
new wealth consisting of unearned profits is appearing at every spot
where federal money is flowing into public works, urban development,
highways and many water conservation projects.
Henry George's fame over the world in the last two decades of the 19th
century was as great as is that of John Maynard Keynes now. His basic
philosophy held that equity demanded the taxing of the "unearned
increment" on land values and, as he said, taxes should "bear
as lightly as possible on production" and "bear equally, so as
to give no one an advantage or put anyone at a disadvantage as compared
with others."
Those principles, first stated by Adam Smith in 1776, are true today
and apply with great pertinence to urban development.
The magazine House and Home recently sponsored a round-table conference
on housing and urban development generally. Participating were
representatives of the housing, real estate, insurance, mortgage,
banking, and savings and loan businesses. P. I. Prentice, editor and
publisher of House and Home, was moderator. The report agreed upon by
all centered upon "tight money" and also inflationary land
values.
The report had this to say about the latter problem:
"Steepest price inflation, of all has been the price inflation in
land
the builders know all too well what is happening, be-cause
the price of the land they need has risen far faster than the price of
the materials they buy or the wages of the labor they employ.
"The price of big city slum land has soared so high that private,
enterprise cannot meet :' the need for low-income or even middle-income
housing without a big land-write-down subsidy. The price of suburban
land has soared so high that in some projects the land seller gets
almost as many dollars for his acreage as all the manufacturers get for
all the building products used in the houses. ...
"The only way land price inflation can be prevented is to tax land
much more heavily, shifting a substantial part of the local tax burden
now carried by improvements to the land itself. Taxes are the only
important costs a land speculator must pay, so taxes are the only brake
on the price of land.
"Incidentally, taxing land more heavily would take the bootleg
profit out of slums and force many slumlords to improve their property
to get enough added income to pay their would deflate the value of slum
property and make federal subsidies for urban renewal land-write-downs
unnecessary. It would cut the cost of highway extension by cutting land
costs for the right of way.
"It would make the unearned increment in suburban land values pay
the cost of schools and other community facilities needed to convert raw
land into housing. It would let home builders offer better homes for
less money by spending for quality the money they now waste on land
inflation. It would reduce taxes on good homes by increasing the taxes
on vacant and under-used land."
The complete report of the round-table discussion appears in the
current issue of House and Home.
|