Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The Conservative (Nebraska City, Neb.) 1898-1902 | View Entire Issue (July 4, 1901)
-i 10 Conservative * THE SINGLE TAX. EDITOR THE CONSERVATIVE ; I have been requested by Mr. Waage , who left today for a trip to Norway , to answer the questions raised by correspondence with reference to his article 011 the Single Tax. Two communications have appeared in TIIE CONSERVATIVE , one by Mr. G. J. Foyer and the other signed by D. J. S. It is quite possible that these inquirers are Single Tax men who wish to draw out discussion. Nevertheless they raise the questions which are in good faith pre sented by nearly every person to whom the Single Tax is for the first time made known. Mr. Foyer presents the following queries : 1. Will not the landlord shift the tax upon the tenant , as he does all other taxes today ? 2. What benefit would the laborer derive from the Single Tax ? 3. If you were to levy all taxes on laud no one would own it. 4. Is there not plenty of idle land out West ? And if so , why don't the people go out there ? 5. If the Single Tax would do every thing lie states , why don't the people get it ? 6. What would Mr. Waage do for the poor widow who had saved a few dollars and had purchased a piece of land and it was the only means of her support ? Would he tax it out of her possession ? The Shifting of Taxes. I shall answer Mr. Foyer's questions , enumerated above , as follows : 1. The landlord does not now shift the tax which falls upon the value of his land. The only tax which can be shifted is the tax upon capital and wealth. Taxes upon wealth , check production , and hence tend to diminish the quan tity of wealth in existence , and hence enable those who produce and deal in such articles to charge more for them. The tax is a part of the cost of produc tion , and is generally shifted to the con sumer. But a tax on land-values tends to make land cheaper. It is clear that the tax which falls upon valuable vacant laud cannot be shifted by the landlord , because he has no tenants. But when the tax practically equals its annual value , the landlord who does not use his own land would bo ruined by the tax if he should continue to pay it. There is no way by which he could get it back again. All economists agree that the tax on laud-values cannot bo shifted. But , as the landlord is compelled to hunt for tenants , he is obliged to find tenants who will pay the whole tax for him that is , the full value of the land. Such land will have to be rented low enough to draw the tenants off the land which is now in use , and this will lower the price of all land. But as the Single Tax brings iuto use , nt lower prices , a greater area of valuable land , it does not increase the number of tenants. And the rent will fall to that sum which equals the value of land when all val uable land is in use. This is the amount the tenant would pay ; that is , the Single Tax would collect from the landlord , and he could not collect any more from the tenant , because it is impossible to raise the price of land where the demand is falling off by reason of an increased supply. The Benefit to Labor. 2. The laborer would get the product of his labor ; ho would not have to pay speculative monopoly-rent. He would , like Adam , have free access to the nat ural bounties , and he would have equal access to the laud to which the presence of a civilized community had given a value. He would have access to the store-house of nature ( free land ) , and ho would have access to the store-house of man ( civilization ) upon terms of justice and equality. If in England in 1492 the wages of an unskilled farm laborer was equal to the purchasing power of $2.67 ( Throrold Rogers , professor , Oxford ) , when one-third of the best lands of England was leased out by the monas teries to the people on low ( economic ) rents , what would be the wages of un skilled labor now , when the general pro ductive power of labor has , by modern devices , been multiplied many times ? If Only Land Were Taxed , Who Would Own It ? 8. It is not necessary that1 the user of laud should appropriate the rental value of it. In all civilized countries four- fifths of the people are tenants. Thirty thousand persons own England. And everywhere every "land-owner" holds his title subject to the payment of taxes. The Single Tax proposes to abolish the taxes upon improvements and capital by- a corresponding increase upon land- values. Who is going to be hurt but the mere speculator and forestaller ? 4. Every man has an equal right of access to the bounties of nature ( land ) and to the bounty of man ( civilization ) . So long as there remained open to the public , free land which was fertile and good our people thrived , even although they were compelled to live under "primitive" conditions. But the civ ilized state is man's natural state the "natural" man is the cultivated product of the highest civilization. We want the benefit of our own civilization , and therefore we want equality of access to the lands which we , by our collective presence and industry , have made valu able. If Ideal , Why Not Desirable ? 5. No nation or people have at any time or in any place desired to do justice to others or to themselves. They are al ways vain , cowardly , treacherous , de ceitful and dishonest. It is for this reason that they are so ignorant. But if there existed in the world but one community of honest men , they would , by that stern and holy selfishness with which they would guard their own right , soon discover * the Single Tax , and the institution of this scheme would compel all other countries to do like wise. Read the old miner's code in Califor nia. nia.G. G. Mr. Waage would piit the Single Tax upon all lands , whether owned by poor widows or by rich widows ; poor men or rich men. What has a poor widow to do with the subject ? The Single Tax will marry off all the poor widows quicker than you can say "Jack Robin son ! " The queries raised by "D. J. S. " are : 1. Would the people , iinder the Single Tax , own their own lands as now , or would the government own them ? 2. If A should rent a lot and build a $1,000,000 building on it , and B would offer to pay a higher rent for the lot , how would A and B settle for the build ing ? I shall answer these as follows : Land Titles Unchanged. 1. Under the Single Tax the title will remain unchanged. And if the Single Tax is not paid the property will be sold for taxes as we do now. The selling value of the land should equal the tax. See Waage's article. Under the Single Tax the government would have title in no lands except such as would be de voted to government uses. Any person could take up , free of charge , or for nominal fees for registration , land to which no value attached. 2. The government has nothing to do with improvements upon laud. If the Single Tax was not paid , the land would be sold for the tax , just as it now is. If there were improvements upon it , the tax would undoubtedly be a lien upon them. If the tax-payer thought the tax was too high , courts could easily settle the matter as to whether the sell ing value of the laud was equal to the tax. W. F. COOLING. Chicago , 111. , June 20 , 1901. DON'T LIKE RAILROAD CORPO RATIONS. EDITOR CONSERVATIVE : It will be unnessary for you to waist your time and Paper sending it to me I do not take any stalk in R. Road corporations. YourResp. , , J. L. BLUE. Juniata , Neb. , June 25 , 1901. The publishers of THE CONSERVATIVE will consider it "unnessary" to "waist" more time and paper by sending it to any one who takes no "stalk in R. Road corporations. "
