0
THE NEBRASKA INDEPENDENT.
MAY 14, 19 0 3,
that which contained the father of his
intimate friend, Tom I Johnson.
Over Henry George's grave was raised
! by popular subscription a monument
executed by his second son, Richard
F. George. The monument bears in
bronze letters this quotation from
"Progress and Poverty" i
i The truth that I have tried to :
: make clear will not find easy ac- :
: ceptance. If that could be, it :
would have been accepted' long :
: ago. If that could be, it would :
: never have been obscured. Cut :
: it will find friends those who :
: will toll for it; suffer for it; if :
. UCli UOf ' U1Q 1UI tu A UIO to wv
1
A Tax Upon Land Values
By Louis F. Post.
: power of Truth.
,
The Second Table
The dining room provided by The
Independent for the single taxers'
banquet their "feast of reason and
flow of soul" has proved entirely in
adequate, and the editors know how
to sympathize with St. Louis in her
recent experience. A hundred-page
issue would just about hold all the
single tax articles which have come
to hand up to noon Wednesday (May
13). There is not a poorly written one
among the lot, but some of them have
the disadvantage of being rather too
long. The writers of those article:
which do not appear in this number
must not understand that the omis
sion was because of any lack of merit
In the manuscript From time to
time these will be used on page 6,
which will hereafter be devoted to the
single tax. In justice to those who
must eat at the second table, The In
dependent gives herewith their names
and what they Intended to talk about:
Charles McGowan. Youngstown, 0..
Difference of Opinion Charles J.
Finger, San Angelo, Tex., The Phil -osophy
of SelfishnessX J. Wade,
Urbana, 111., Is Land a Natural Mo
nopoly it J. F. Cowern, East Charlotte,
Vt, Single Tax vs. Socialism Thomas
Hunt, Kennedy, O., Special Privileges
,Frank Jackson, Metamora, Ind.,
Must Enlist All Reformers Alice
Carpenter, Brooklyn, Suggestions from
a Suburbanite John Sherwin Cros
by, New York, Effect of Single Tax
on Wages J. B. Vining, Cleveland,
Brief Paragraphs for Busy Men
P. Cullman, Jr., Chicago, Land j3pec
ulationC. F. Guenther, Cleveland,
Study Political Economy F. Burg
; dorff, Cleveland, A Correspondence
- J. L. Caldwell, Amarillo Tex., A Dia
logued Geo. L. , Ruaby, New York,
What the Single Tax IsDr. M. R.
Leverson, Brooklyn, The Single Tax
,E. B. Swinney, Brooklyn, How Mr.
Smith Became a Single Taxer Sam
uel Brazier, Boston, Fillebrown's Fig
ures Robert H. Debeck, Woodfords,
.Me., Did God Ordain the Single Tax?,
F. T. Moreland, Portsmouth, 0., Sin
gle Tax and the Farmer W. H. T.
Wakefield, Mound City, Kas., The
Primer of Taxation; Direct and Indi
rect Taxation; Comparative Land
Values; Philosophy of Freedom
Laurie J. Quinby, Omaha, Justice
Not Charity Dr. J. C. Barnes, Hinds
boro, Ili., A General ViewD. T. Ed
wards, Youngstown, O., Single Tax
as a Revenue Percy S. Marcellus,
Brooklyn, Effect Upon Manufacturers
C M. Hoose, Germantown, Pa., The
Dog in the Manger P. W. Sehwan
der, Houston, Tex., Cannot Be Shifted
W. Trueman, New Haven, Conn.,
Egoism and Altruism, George S.
Krouse, Kensington, Md., At the Town
MeetingW A. DouglasToronto, An
Experiment in Taxation. John R.
Spencer,' Waco, Tex., How It Will Af
fect Wage-Earners.
: Besides these, the following persons
expected to say a few words in favor
of the "philosophy of freedom": S.
P. Gibson, Star, Neb.; Wm. Spalding,
Murray, Idaho; M. H. Ramage, Wash
ington, D. q.; W. M. Martin, editor
. f-'Economy," Solon, la.; U. ; Tannef,
Cannon Falls, Minn.; S. A. Moulton,
Campbell,' CaL, and C. E. S. Wood,
,' Portland, Ore. . -
. The single tax explains history. It
shows how and why young nations in
.a yet sparsely settled land are ever
free progressive, virtuous, producing
many noble men and women, true pa
triots, democratic ' institutions, public
Justice. The', single tax; explains the
changes in rational character and
governments that takes place ' when
advancing land values as population
Increases differentiates the; people ir
to ;ri5h and poor, causing, .decay of
character as. one class becomes proud
and arrogdnt and' the other humble,
i dependent,' submissive; democratic in-
ftitutions' changing to -aristocratic
ones as wealthy men seize the powers
of the government to further advance
their own interests and gratify their
pride. All oil nations paseed through
this change. W. H. T. Wakefield.
Five months trial trip, 25c.
Louis F. Post, editor of The" Public,
Chicago, and Prof. John B. Clark, of
Columbia university, debated the sin
gle tax at Cooper Union, New York,
on the 20th of February, last The
question was: ''Resolved, That all
revenues for government federal,
state, and local should be derived
from tax upon land values. Taxation
for police purposes shall not be dis
cussed, and the value of public rran
chases shall be regarded as chiefly
consisting of land value.".
Mr. Post, of course, had the af
firmative ' and In his opening speech
said (omitting the first complimentary
sentences):
Now, Mr. Chairman, ladles and gen
tlemen, reduced to its simplest form.
thi3 resolution that I have just quoted
asserts that all public revenues should
be derived from a tax upon land val
ues, v But what does that mean?
What are we to understand by a tax
upon land values?
Strictly speaking, you can't tax land
values, for there is no such object
as land values; there is no such ob
ject as value of any kind. Value is
not a concrete thing. Value is not an
entity. It is nothing but a device for
comparison, a mode of measurement
As we compare differences of quan
tity in terms of inches or ounces or
quarts, so we compare differences in
exchangeability in terms ot value. To
say that a thing Is valuable, is only
to say that it is tradable. To say
that it has a certain value is only to
say that it has a certain degree of
tradability. , ;
What the human race lives upon is
not values, but food, drink, clothing,
shelter, luxuries, the artificial imple
ments -that aid in their production,
and old Mother Earth, the source ot
them all. Values measure the ex
changeability of those things, but are
no substitute for them. AH business
has reference to those things, in the
last analysis, and rests upon them.
It can't rest upon value, for value is
only an abstraction. No one pro
poses, therefore, to tax land values,
in a rigidly literal sense of those
words. , -
Neither is it proposed to tax lard
itself., Though we often speak loose
ly of taxing property, Just as we do
of fcxing property values, that is not
what is meant literally. What we tax
is neither property nor the values of
property, but men. Yet, when the
amount of taxes imposed upon men is
determined by the quantity or the
value of the property, they own, it is
proper enough to speak, of taxing
property. And in this way we may
speak of taxing land, or taxing land
values. The resolution before us is
not to be criticised for using the lat
ter term. I am not criticising it. But
we must be careful to see that this
convenient but indefinite phrase does
not confuse our thought
Now, there are two ways of levying
property taxes. One way is to tax
men according to the quantity of their
property, according to its measure
ment in feet or inches, in ounces or
gallons or ncres. This is called a
specific tax. The other way is to
tax them according to its value, ac
cording to its measurement in dollars.
This Is called an ad valorem tax.
Both methods are used in the cus
tom houses, and are known there by
those names, specific and ad valorem.
When you put a tariff of 4 cents a
pound on maple sugar, or 45 cents a
gross on lead pencils, you impose a
specific tax; when you put a tariff of
25 per cent of their value upon books,
you Impose an ad valorem tax. The
two methods of taxation specific and
ad valorem may be applied to any
kind of property, or all kinds, and
whether the tax is Imposed at the fed
eral custom house or at the local as
sessor's office. If you tax a man, for
Instance, In proportion to the number
of acres of land he owns, that is a
specific land tax; but If you tax him
In proportion to its value, that is an
ad valorem land tax.
The resolution that we are discuss
ing proposes an ad valorem land tax.
It Is commonly known as the single
tax, which is associated with the name
and memory of Henry George. Under
the operation of this tax all improve
ments upon land would be exempt So
would every other kind of property
that is drawn from land and shaped by
human labor to satisfy human wants.
Men would be taxed in proportion to
their land holdings as measured in
terms of value. Those whose land
would fetch but little in the market
would pay but little tax. Those whose
land would fetch much, would pay a
large tax. And there would be ' no
other taxation for public revenue,
With these preliminary explanations,
let us turn to the merits of the ques
tion. -;
I shall assume that we all agree to
the necessity for government . It is
true that society is one thing, and gov
ernment is another.- Society does ex
ist, irrespective of government. But
it seems necessary that society .shall
have some organized agency for the
administration of common concerns
not of private concerns, but for the
lmffi4ofiiftA'A - w ---
mm m b tv via f- wj vksaju wjua ami
We must have the peace preserve I.
We must have highways laid out and
kept open. We must have land tenure
regulated. These are common con
cerns. There may be others, but these
are .at least This being so, society
nust have some kind of organized
agency to manage them for the com
mon good; and by whatever name you
call that agency, it is a government
But if we have government, wo
must make provision for its-support.
What does that mean? Nothing but
this, that the government is composed
of men who devote themselves to pub
lic business as other men do to pri
vate business, and who must be paid
for their services. And what does
"pay" mean? Not greenbacks, not
bank notes, not checks, not silver, or
gold money, not certificates of value
or any form or of any character. All
such, things are merely orders for 'the
various kinds of tradable objects our
public servants want They are not
the objects themselves. The pay of
these men consists, after all, of food;
of clothing, of shelter, and of other
consumable objects. Moreover, offi
cials must have official equipment,
such as public buildings, office furni
ture, stationery, and so forth. But
whether it be the public buildings or
the like, which government must use,
or the food, clothing, and so on, which
government servants really get in
payment for their work,' all these
things are made by men. And not
by men of a distant past, but by the
men of today. They are the current
products of current human labor, and
in the first instance they belong oi
right to the men whose labor pro
duces them.
If society is to get these things for
the purpose of providing for the sup
port of government, it must somehow
take them from their owners; that is
to say,; it mt-st take them from the.
individuals who produced them, or
who have by trading of. some kind
succeeded to the original'title of thosr
who produced them. It is this taking
of . individual possessions for public
use that, constitutes what i3 called
taxation.
The present methods of taxation
are so notoriously vicious that the
facts need only be mentioned; and
why the people should tolerate them
passes comprehension. It has been
suggested that they are retained by
the combined influence of rich and
poor the poor favoring them be
cause they think they are paid by the
rich, and the rich favoring them be
cause they know they are borne by
the poor. A more charitable explana
tion perhaps . would be that public
opinion has not yet realized that there
is a better way of getting taxes. But
there is a better way. It is the way
which the rasolution before us pro -poses.
Consider the matter fundamentally
There are two possible rules for de
termining how much each taxpayer -shall
pay. One requires that men be
taxed in proportion to their personal
ability; the other requires that ' they
be taxed in proportion to the benefits
they derive from society. Now which
of these rules ought we to adept?
Should we tax men in proportion to
their ability to pay -taxes, or should
we tax them : in ; proportion to - the
benefits society gives them? The
question answers itself. Taxation in
proportion to ability to pay is noth
ing but legalized piracy. .Government
has no right to levy tribute. It ha3
only a right to charge for the service
society renders, and to charge accord
ing to the value of that service.
No other principle would be toler
ated by honest men, where It not for
the fact that it has seemed as if taxes
in proportion to the service society
renders to individuals cannot be meas
ured. Because everybody is, in a
sense, a beneficiary of social develop
ment and governmental protection,
the rough and ready plan is adopted
of trying to require everybody to con
tribute to th i support of government
in proportion to his means. It never
succeeds. It never can succeed. It
never ought to succeed. Not only is
it not just; it is not even excusable,
so long as there is a way of taxing In
proportion to social benefits. - And
there is just one way of doing that
While it is true that all derive ben
efits from society, and that all re
ceive protection from government if
properly administered, it is also true
that these benefits, so far as they are
equal, are not salable, not tradable,
andj therefore not valuable. On the
other hand, some members of society;
derive benefits from society and pro
tection from government of a kind
that are; salable, that are tradable,
that are valuable. These benefits are
more properly described as advant
ages. -
Let me illustrate. Here is a badly
paved street In course of time the
local . government, improves - it , and
makes a good street of it You used
th3 street before it was improved. You
uo II etliU Tuu are therefore benefited
by its improvement But you cr.nnot
sell your benefit. It Is not tradable.
It Is not valuable, If you offer to sell
it to me, I should tell you that the
benefits you are getting from this im
provement are freely open to anyone
who chooses to use that street, and
that consequently you have no inter
est in the benefit for which I will pay
you anything. What It is true, then,'
that this street improvement gives y?u
a socia Ibenefit it gives you no social
advantage. Not so with the man who
owns a building site on that street.
He has the same benefit that accrues
from the free use' of, the improved
street that you have. But he has an
additional benefit that you have not.
His building lot on that stieet is more
desirable now. , It Is 4 therefore in
greater demand; and, as the supply o
such lots is limited, it is more read
ily tradable, more easily salable, and
it will fetch a higher price. This
benefit of his is not a mere social ben
efit like the i-ne you have In common
with him; it is a social advantage,
which can ba and is measured in term
of value in the open market, and which,
you cannot onjoy without paying him.
Now which of you two men ought
to contribute to the expense of im
proving that street? Ir you are both
equally able to pay, the advocates of
taxation according to ability woul 1
say . that each of you ought to contri
bute the same amount If you are
better able to pay than he, they would
say that you ought to pay more than
he. But we say that you ought not
to pay at all, because the improvement
gives you no salable benefit We say;
that he ought to contribute in pro
portion to the increased value of his
land, which represents a salable ben
efit
And mind you, if the expense is not
collected of him, but is collected from
you, then if you happen to be the
tenant of a site affected by the im
provement, you will be taxed twice
once "by the public to pay the expense
of improving the street; and the sec
ond time by your landlord to pay for
the privilege of enjoying the street
improvement you have already paid
the public for.
Now that is a crude illustration, but
it tells the whole story. For all so
cial advance, all social improvement
all the material progress of society;
of whatsoever kind' and much of its
progress that is not material all the
(Continued on Page 18.)
oii't Stay Sick
When a Postal Will Bring You
Help.
Write me today, for each day's de
lay means a day more of ill-health
Just tell me which book to send.
I will mail you an order good a
any drug store for six bottles Dr.
Shoop's Restorative. You may take it
a month on trial. If it succeedsthe
cost is $5.50. If it fails, I will pay th3
druggist myself and your mere wor.J
shall decide it
While you are waiting, thousands
of others are cured. Out of each 40
vho make this month's test, -there
are 39 who pay for it gladly, because
they get will. I willingly-pay for the
rest
You don't need to have faith in me.
I have the faith, for I know the rem
edy; and I take the risk. Won't you
simply try to get well? -
I have spent a lifetime in learning
how to strengthen weak inside nerves.
My Restorative brings back that pow
er which alone operates the vital or
gans. I treat a weak organ as t
would a weak engine, by giving it thi
power to act. My way always suc
ceeds, save when a' cause like cancer
makes a cure impossible. And most
of these ! chronic diseases cannot ba
cured withoit it. ; ' '
You'll know this when you read my;
book. '
4
Bimply state which
book yon want, and
address Dr. Shoop,
Bex 515 Racine, Wis.
Mild cases, not chronic, are often cared b
one or two bottles. At til druggists,
f CMt VI). 1 CW tWtMIA
ICO XO.OKTHtHlT
SCCI HO. I OX TBI KIDMrt
roo HO. 4 OK OUI.
SOCK NO. I FOR H1H. Mlri)
BOOK DO. I 01 BBIUMATtHK