would be forced to go to work, and thus the community would gain by an
increase in the number of its productive workers.

108. ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE SINGLE TAX.--The most important objection
to the single tax is that the confiscation of land, or, what amounts
to the same thing, the confiscation of the income which land yields,
is unjust. "Pieces of land," Professor Seager points out, "have
changed hands on the average dozens of times in the United States, and
present owners have in most cases acquired them not as free gifts of
Nature, nor as grants from the government, but by paying for them,
just as they have had to pay for other species of property." Where
individuals have acquired land in good faith, and under the protection
of a government which guarantees the institution of private property,
the confiscation of land value would be demoralizing to the community
and unfair to its land-owning citizens.

Another difficulty lies in the ease with which value due to permanent
improvements is confused with value due to location or fertility.
Where money has been expended in draining land, removing stones or
applying fertilizer, it is hard to tell, after a few years, what part
of the value of the land is due to improvements. The possibility of
this confusion would cause some land-owners to neglect to improve
their land, or might even cause them to neglect to take steps to
retain the original fertility. Thus the single tax might result in the
deterioration of land values.

It is also objected that the single tax would provide an inelastic
taxation system. This means that it would tend to bring in an equal
amount of revenue each year, whereas the revenue needs of government
vary from year to year. A good tax system will accommodate itself to