Idaho County free press. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho Territory) 1886-current, 1891-06-12
SINGLE TAX DEPARTMENT.
THE SINGLE TAX AND THE
FARMER.

r. u. Brown, of Memphis has an ad-
mirable article on How the Single Tax
Would Affect the Farmer" in a recent
number of the St Louis Journal of Ag-
riculture. Explaining the difference
between land and land values and the
value of improvements, Mr. Brown
shows how taxing land value alone
would relieve the farmer from the bur-
dens that now Cypress him. To the
supposed question of the farmer as to
whether the single tax would not de-
stroy the value of his farm, Mr.. Brown
says it would destroy the land value
but would not affect the improvement
value nor the usefulness of the farm.
He takes the following case to illus
trate this point:
John Smith owns farm of 60 acres,
which, under the present system of tax
alton he can sell for $40 per acre Ad-
joining this farm is plot of woodland
equally fertile as Smiths farm, owned
by Old Money bags, the Spectator, who
paid 81. so for it some 20 years ago, and
who now holds it for SIS an acre, owing
to the fact that Smith, Jones and Rob
inson have cleared the land around his
woods, made roads, built a school
house, put up church, and in short
made the wilderness blossom like the
rose" Is it not as clear as two and two
make four, that the difference in value
between Smiths so acre farm and Old
Money-bags' go acre woodland is the
| value of Smiths improvements? Is it
not evident that 5000 of Smiths farm is
land value, and 81, 500 is improvement
value?
Where Smith lives money is worth 8
per cent, and if the tax rate there were
per cent every year, the land value of
his farm would be wiped out since no
one would give him any thing for a
5000 land-value upon which the pur-
chaser would have to paw S54 taxes
every year. Smiths farm would, there
fore, sell for only $1,000 But is he
hurt by this? Not at all! Old Money
bags sixty acres of woodland would be
taxed S54 every year, and as it would be
bringing in nothing, the owner would
let it be sold for taxes and Smith could
get it for a nominal sum and on under
taking to pay the taxes in the future.
Then he could spend his $1,000 in i'm
proving it and would be in exactly the
same condition as he was before he sold
his old farm.
He shows how a personal property
tax bears heavier on the farmers than
on any other class of the community.
He says:
In my county shelby county, Tenn. J.,
although we have $1,000 worth of per-
sonalty exempt by law, which entirely
covers the amount of personal property
owned by the average small farmer, the
personally in the country amounts to
% per cent. of the total valuation, while
in the city, Memphis. which is the dis
tributing point for territory of one
hundred mile radius, the personality is
only 10 per cent. of the valuation.
Mr.. Brown estimates that general
farmer has on the average about 81 900
of personally and 81, 500 of improve
ments for 5000 of land value. He then
shows how per cent tax on this 5000
of land value, or $54 year, would be
far less than the taxes he now pays
which, including the enhanced pieces of
goods occasioned by the tariff, would
be at the lowest possible extent at least
$40 year He points out how the cit
les, New York for instance. where land
has sold for $500 square foot, or S13,-
600, 900 an acre, would pay the bulk of
taxation under the single tax. The ben
eft of exempting improvements in slim
ulating industry, ard the evil of indi-
rect taxation, taxes on goods, on produc-
ton, on houses, tariff duties, which in
crease prices, stop consumption and les
sen the demand for the farmers pro-
ducts, are clearly shown. Mr.. Brown
asks the readers of the Agriculturist to
look into this question, and as secretary
of the Memphis single tax association
he offers to supply literature to anyone
who asks for it.