Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1889-07-17
THE SINGLE Tx.
Views of Three Advocates of a Tax on Lana
Values and the Fallacy Thereof
PHILADELPHIA Record.

Views of Three Advocates of Tax on Lana
Values and the Fallacy Thereof
Philadelphia Record .
The record finds qualification in giving
such space as it can to the intelligent
discussion of tax reform. The three
following letters very clearly present the
views of the advocates Of a tax on land
values:
Editor of the Record:
The deluge of letters you have received
on the tax question is evidence that the
people are learning to look at the
Record to the advocate and
leader in the cause Of fiscal re-
form-a reform that must go on
It'll it is impossible for willing workers
to be kept idle in the midst of unlimited
but undeveloped wealth. Therefore it is
important that the Record should not be
at fault. In your issue of yesterday you
say that if the rental value of land were
taken for public purposes it would be
aaHtamount to a government partnership
I'm everybody's land, and that the pro-
duct of the land would thereafter be
made deaFer to the extent of the burden
impasFa upon it. Now, is this true?
or farm and pay the annual land va luss
TO the government GnsteaG of toMa
ground-rent owner), then is the govern
ment any more my partner than a.
ground-rent owner would be? ~
And could / add the annual land value
to the rent or to the price of the product
Of the mine or farm?
L. SHOEMAKER.
Philadelphia, June go
Editor of the Record.
The margin of cultivation is the produce
tive power ofthe poorest land in use The
rent of any land is the difference between
its productive power and that of lands at
the margin of cultivation A tax on
economic rent could not pc diffused, be
cause rent is determined by the margin
of cultivation, and TO tax landsTalues
would be to force land into use, thefeBS
raising the margin of cultivation aid re-
duciIg, not increasing, rents.
The cry of confseation has no terroFs
for us. We claim that the earth belongs
equally to ali, and that its rental value
is the result of common necessities and
uses, and therefore belongs to the COM
monalty and not to the Individual We
claim further that the freeing of produc-
ton and exchange from its present
burdens and restrictions and the opening
of land to all who desire to use it (for
lanG is necessary not to some but
to all forms OF production)
which would follow the simple act
of justice of leaving to the indi-
yidual what belongs to him, and giving
to the community what belongs TO it,
would so increase wealth and the oppor-
tunity to produce wealth that none who
were willing to work would be poor, and
none who were unwilling to work could
get rich. Truly yours,
ISAAC FEINBERG.
Philadelphia, July l
Editor of the Record:
In your editorial comment upon letters
received upon the single tax in last Sat-
urday's issue, it seems to me you both
ignore the points put forward to be an
swered and misquote Mr.. Henry George.
Mr.. George does not to my knowledge
hold that a single tax upon the rental
value Of land will not be diffused. On
the contrary, he claims that the value
given to land Cor more clearly the power
given to land to extract value) by pop
ulation is due in some degree to every
individual forming such population; that
tax upon such value must neces-
sarily be tax upon every individual,
and that in proportion to the opportunity
he monopslizes and to the Auxuriousness
of his life. Consequently, he asserts
that the single tax does diffuse
itself as to bear in due proportion
upon all other property not so taxed.
He does so hold, however, that the tax
cannot be shifted in the sense q tariff,
internal revenue or any other tax upon
production can be shifted-entirely upon
the consumer.
What we claim is this: That the power
given TO land to- extract value will
exist whether it is taxed or not. That it
is given by every one In general and no,
one in particular, and a tax upon it is ]
more =" perfectly diffused than
any other that can be invented.
That if IT is not taxed it goes to
the development of an aristocracy
among those who hold title to land,
aud other taxes that do not dIffuse them
selves. perfectly have to be relied upon
for the support of government, thus ag-
gravating still more the inequality That |
the leaving of this fund in the hands OF |
individuals gives a speculative value TO
the land which causes the torestalling of |
land and holding it for increasing popu-
lation That 1t keeps the Spectator in |
earth just in advance of civilization |
imposing an almost impossible !
barrier to the laborer, keep |
ing him off the land and causing
the grinding competition which forces
wages down to the lowest point at which |
the iaborer can live. That the abolition
of all our present taxes except the land |
tax, and increasing it to the full rental |
value of the land, will free all industry
from all restriction. break up specula- |
ton in land, and thus throw all unused
land open to those who want to use IT,
thereby doing away with competition |
among laborers, which viii raise wages
TO their natural level, i. e., what the
produces.
The real estate tax you speak of would |
be better than what we now have, but |
would not diffuse itself perfectly for the
the reasons you stated in answering Mr. |
- Il