The Black Hills union. [volume] (Rapid City, Pennington County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1889-1904, 1891-02-27


ANSWER TO COWBOYS QUESTIONS.
In last weeks UNION Cowboy" asked
me the following questions on the single
tax:
1. Does history furnish any prece-
dent OF the application OF single tax the
DRY; if SO, what was the result?
No; had any CIVILIZED nation ever
tried it, it would not now be a matter
OF history, but an existing reality.
However you must remember that
we now raise some tax from land
value and we advocate raising it
all from this one source. We do not
draw upon history for examples to
guide us in progression. Truths are
drawn from nature and put into being
and progression Is the result.
2. Doyou think that the ownership
OF land IN common (Which is the ideal OF
the single tax theory Offers individuals
better inducements to place valuable
improvements on lands belonging to
the Sioux reservation, and that the
ownership OF land i'll severality would
retard the advancement Of civilization?
The single tax does not mean The owner
ship of!andincommon, it means the own
ership Of rent in common-land value
your little will be Just as good under the
single tax as now, you can buy and sell,
by measurement as now. You will pay
tax on land value and none on improve
ments and personal property. Suppose
you o pay S25 on improvements and
personal property and S25 on land
value; will it hurt your little if you pay
$50 on land value and mono On the
other property? 1t would encourage
improvement by taking off the fines and
penalties 10Y put upon him who i'm
proves land. No matter how much i'm
provements you have, your tax will be
no more than the man who holds a. sim
liar tract OF ltnd idle and ummproved.
All that is necessary to induce men to
improve land is securlto OF possession,
and this they will have under the single
tax. 1t will not only encourage indus
Try, but discourage idleness. by making
it Improbable to hold land except fol
Improvement and use.
3. Would it be right and con.
%slstent for q government that owns
and sells land to individuals anc
for more than a hundred years has
encouraged it's own people and immi
grants from other countrys to possess
land and homes Of their own; to destroy
the hard earnings OF the people invested
i'll land by Il act OF legislation?
We do not advocate taking land from
any one. Your land will produce Jus
as much and your little will be just a
good under the single tax us now, but i
must be used. What we want to talk
is economic rent. Land is taken fol
two purposes. First, by those who
want to use it.; second, by those who
want to speculate on it. Our govern
ment has always encouraged the former
and discouraged the latter. Ii you be
long to the former class the single TIA,
will benefit you, if to the | ,nyou vii
find cold comfort in it. l might her,
say that. in correcting mistakes, som,
one is sure to be hurt, especially is thi
true in matters OF government which
has long continued. If you break you
leg, setting it will hurt like sin, but If i
is not done gangreene is likely to set il
and you are liable to have it ampu
tated. The great question to be an
severed is, will society be benefited by i
will it bring a better condition OF thing
for mankind at large? Is it right? Not
will there be IA few who will be injured b,
the change. History is full OF instance
where not only property but human lif
itself was sacrificed in correcting thes
mistakes OF government. The genera
prosperity that will follow the adoption
Of this measure will be so great that til
Spectator who loses money invested il
land will be satisfied with the result.
4. Would not the single tax cause
monopoly Of land by capitalists VIII
now have mortgages on realestate ant
would be compelled to foreclose, becaus
the owner would be unable to meet th
additional obligations imposed by sait
tax?
There will be no additional burden OF
the man WHO works his laad. HOY
could the mortgage hold the land if tn
mortgagor cannot? Tt will only b
profitable to hold land for use, and thi
will prevent its monopolization. TIL
speculation in land is the increase in it
rent or selling price, this will so into til
treasury instead OF mems pockets.
5. Would not the owners OF larg
~tracts Of land avoid the tax by increas
ing the rent, the amount OF. the addition
al tax?
If land owners could get more rent o
a higher price for their land under tn
single tax, why not now? Land mus
be used before 1t can be held withou
loss to it's owner, SO all the land will b
on the market for users and thus reduc
rent instead OF increasing it.
6. Why do you wish to compel a per
son who now is a farmer to be always
farmer and confiscate the greater par
Of his property if he wishes to chang
4 his vocation?