-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. "