Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1890-10-02
SINGLE TAX DEPARTMENT.
A THREE YEARS CROP.
Profitable Farming a Section

S64, 900. Last week he refused an offer
of S44S, 900 cash for it.
The above item is taken from the
Kenosha Blade, Wisconsin paper. II
tho statement is true, and it is more
than likely it is true, David Roys made
S3Ss, 900 in three years. That was doing
very we'll. we must admit, but it would
be interesting to know what David did
to increase the value of his land so
tremendously. He cleared S3SS, 600.
That's large sum. At 81 day David
could have employed for one day 1885,
600 mon, or to put it another way. II
Mr.. Roys had been working for 81 day
ne at that rate would have G1rned S3S4,-
600 in .O62I years. According to the
Bible, the man who lived to the great
est age died at 900 years. To earn $SSS,
900 at 81 day man would have to live
to be more than LOTS years old. If
he adopted the plan of saving half he
earned and put away fifty cents day by
the time he had saved S3SS, 900 he would
more than likely be gray headed.
David foys buys section of land near
city and pays $4,000 for it. Three
years after he refuses S44S. 900 for the
same land. Seven hundred per cent. is
not profit enough for him. If farmer
makes twenty-five percent on the stock
he raises he is doing we'll, he thinks,
even though he has to work to make it.
II the man who sells groceries makes
ten per cent. on his business he has no
cause to complain, but here is David
Roys, land Speculation, makes roo per
cent in three years and it is not enough.
7 f, l-y, 4 Il
David increase the value of that land?
Do you suppose he put a fancy fence
around the section, or put in several
fountains. or did he SOW bluegrass and
plant trees here and there, SO when the
gentle spring came the section of land
looked as if it were covered with vel
vet carpet with lovely dark spots caused
by the shadows of the trees which only
caused the emerald earth to assume a
brighter hue.
Possibly Mr.. Roys hauled manure al
the fall and early winter and scattered
it over the land so that in three years
time his section of land increased 700
per cent. The same land that he paid
S64, 900 for he refused S44S, 900 for.
Wouldn't you like to have that choice?
1t occurs to me that the section we are
talking about might have been a swamp
and Mr.. Roys might have drained it,
and thereby increased the value of his
section.
What do you think about it? Has
your land increased like that? If so,
was it because you plowed it, and
planted it. and ditched it, and ma
nured it? If working land would make a
y
years, how is it that farmers do not get
rich? ] know many of them work, and
work like good fellows. too
BY hard work valued at 81 day il
would take the labor of 354 men three
years to increase the valuation of Mr..
Roys' section from S64, 900 to S44S, 600. So
it is not in the nature of things that Mr..
RoyS increased the value of his section
by his own labor as he could scarcely
do as much in three years as 354 men
could. Where did that value come from?
1t says the section of land was near a
city. and | have no doubt but that this
particular section Of land was surround
ed by other sections that were owned
and worked by men who made their liv-
ing out of the land they worked. Near
this section was city. OF course We
all know that city is place where a
great many people live and in order that
these people in the city may live they
must use land. AS city increases in
size the land near the city becomes
more valuable because more people want
it-and some of them must have it
then, too as the city grows the land
near the city has greater advantages
and so it increases in price. Not only
does the land increase in price accord
ing to the demand at the time but it has
a value called speculative value which
is given to it because the prospect is
that next year the demand for the land
will be greater than it is this year
All this time, while the land is going
up, not because the owner has improved
it, but because others have built around
it-all this time the public expenses are
met by tax upon food and clothes and
houses and stock, etc. If you build
house and the State or county taxes you
for so doing, the State or county is TAX
ing from you part of the value which
your own individual industry has Gre
ated, and if the tax on houses were made
very heavy, then people could not afford
to live in houses. SO we Single-Tax men
propose to take the necessary taxes out
cf the value of the land because, as you
can see, land has value which is given
to it by the work of others besides the
owner.
Mr.. Roys's land increased 700 per
cent, not because he improved it, but
because other people near him improved
their lands and the population near him
increased in number.
If Mr.. Roys held his land idle-and
he probably did-then he paid less taxes
on his land than the farmer next to him
who owned the same amount of land.
Is that right? Both the man who
uses land and the man Who holds it
idle or will not let others use it, if
they have land of equal value should
pay the same tax on it because they
both have possession of the same
amount of that article which every hui
man being needs.
If we tax houses we will have fewer
houses. But we want more houses. do
we not? Should not every man have
home? Then, why tax houses? If we
tax land according to it's value then it
will not pay to speculate in land, and it
will not pay to keep it Idle. 1t is neces-
sary for men to use land in order to live.
So if taxing land will make the owners
put it to use, then those who are idle
will find employment and the tramp will
vanish out of the land. Land is meas
ured by it's value. not by its area. The
value of land is made by the increase of