Hobson would know - he himself was a member of the Fabian Society.
First published in 1897, this writing is in the public domain.
blf
I’ve always found Henry George interesting. I believe his ideas have been used by bad people to promote bad things. But I’m not entirely sure that George’s ideas themselves are completely wrong.
Private ownership of land and natural resources is an aspect of the institution of private property and private ownership of the means of production that has been condemned by economists who in other respects were supporters of capitalism, most notably Henry George.
Their case against private ownership of land and natural resources rests on the theory of land "rent" developed by David Ricardo. Ricardo concluded both that the natural or equilibrium level of wages is subsistence, and that rent tends to constitute a larger and larger proportion of the total income of a country, as the country grows in wealth and population.
But, actually, private ownership of land is an essential foundation of economic progress, and the more it is respected, the more rapid is economic progress. Thus, it is precisely private ownership of land that prevents land rent from constituting an ever growing share of income. For private ownership of land operates to increase the productivity of land and thus reduce its scarcity value and rent.
Private ownership of land provides the means and motive for making each piece of land more productive and for bringing into production every piece that is better than what is presently in use. It is thus the most powerful force operating in favor of abundance and against any growing scarcity of the better grades of land. Thus, it works to reduce land rent and its economic significance.
While I am by no means a progressive, I am a confirmed Georgist. His concepts should be the basis of a just society.
Most of us agree that we need government, and that someone has to pay for it. We debate about how large that government should be and how it should be funded. George’s concept of a land use tax provide solutions to both these problems.
What gives land its value? Why is an acre of land on Manhattan Island worth thousands of time that of land in the Nevada desert? The difference in value is due solely to social institutions. Since society creates this value, society is entitled to the rent on this land, which in normal circumstances is adequate to pay for the necessary institutions of government. An individual is free to use as much land as he wants for his purposes, as long as he will pay the land’s rent. What could be fairer?
Then, we can eliminate income tax. A tax on income makes free men into slaves. We can also eliminate tax on capital, because this is an indirect tax on income.
Why has such a beneficial system not been universally adopted? The wealthy spend a great deal of money buying political parties, so that they do not have to pay rent on the land they control.