The record-union., 1891-02-02
SINGLE TAX.
Argument Of the Federated Trades in
Its Favor.
They Regard It as the Most Effective
Remedy for Land Monopoly
In This Country.

Ids hECORD-ONlON: Kindly allow
space for the following article, which I
think may interest some of your readers.
In reply toll. G. Marines article of Jan
uary 2Sth in the San Francisco Examiner
setting himself Alright on the immigration
question. We would say that we neither
misrepresented or misquoted his state
ments in the New Years edition of that
paper. If he was misrepresented his
words could not have spoken his senti-
ments. 1 know Mr.. MARITIME personally,
and know him to be philosophical and
liberal in his views, and has proven, to
my satisfaction, that he is for reform. He
offers no remedy for land monopoly, and
that is the great fault OF many who
would like to see land monopoly abol-
lshed. 1t does not seem fair to throw all
the burden on the Federated Trades. Let
him buckle on the armor with us, and
induce his friends to do likewise, and to
form clubs. am certain he will have the
support of organized labor.
have remedy, and / think good
one. 1t is called the single tax system.
Those who believe in the doctrine are the
enemies OF the protective system. wonder
II Mr.. MARITIME can discard protection
and swallow free trade. 1 believe in lib
erty as long as l do not conflict with the
rights of others to buy and trade without
being taxed for doing so.
The system OF protection comes in con-
fict with liberty, and says to the con-
sumner, you must not trade with the for
eigner under penalty. The single tax is
a just system; it-dOes not take from the
individual, but from the community. 1t
is not tax on labor, nor ON the product
of labor. Protection falls heavily on the
many, for the benefit of the few, and en-
courages land monOpoly-makes the rich
richer and the poor poorer.
Therefore, if Mr.. MARITIME wants land
monopoly abolished, let him swallow the
single tax pill, and have his friends do
likewise. Then, when we have majority.
land monopoly is doomed. The present
system of taxation is unjust, in our
opinion, for many reasons. If man is
enterprlsing, and gives employment to
labor, he is taxed for so doing, and the
more enterprising he is the heavier he is
taxed. Capital, too, is taxed. The more
you tax it, the less liable it is to stay with
us.
Here is an illustration of the single tax.
1t tthe single tax is not a tax on land.
but on the value of land-on the value
OF bare land, without improvements, as a
vacant lot in city. 1t is not tax on
area. but on value. There is but little
acres that would sell for s. 600. have in
mind one farm of 100 acres that would sell
for $4,000, the owner of which computed
the value OF the improYements-the clear
Ing so as to fit it to be convenient and
easy to cultivate, fencing, ditching, Dig
ging well, planting orchards, etc., house.
barns and outhouses to be $500. leaving
the value OF the bare land but 500. His
State and county tax was SIG. Under the
single tax it would have been S35.
The profit made from using land is what
gives it its value; the larger the profit.
the greater the value. From using some
city lots profit of thousands of dollars
can be made. From some farms of a
thousand times the area of the city lot, no
proht can be made. Some city lots have
great value; some farms have only an i'm
proyement, but no land value The
greater the service the owner or user of
land receives from the Government. the
larger his profit can be. If he receives no
such service, he can make no profit. The
service OF Government is as to the size and
density OF the community. The larger
anu more dense the community, the
greater the service of Government.
Each should pay tax in proportion to
the service he receives from government.
The owner of city lot, from the use of
which he can make a profit of thousands
OF dollars annually, receives from the
Government all the service possible.
while the service that the owner of a farm
OF 100 acres, the land value of which is but
500, receives is trivial.
therefore, tax on the value of land
would be equable. Each would nav ex-
actly i'll proportion to the value Of the
land he was using. The farmer would
be relieved OF great burden, and not
only survive, but would become prosper
GUS under the conditions which would
naturally follow the adoption of the single
tax on the value of land.
1t is quite a mystery to me how any
one can find it difficult to understand 50
simple problem. Senator ingalls, made
a very remarkable speech in the United
States Senate only last week on the silver
question. Here are some extracts: ssThe
population of the United States in 1900
was5 300, 900, and the estimated wealth of
the country was between three and four
thousand million dollars. There was not
nlillonalre, not tramp, not pauper
IN the country" and consider this re-
markable utterance, coming from pro
tectioniSt.
+. Let our leading citizens club topether
buy tract of land and offer it at a fair
figure to mandatory free of taxes for a
number of years. Then see if some ono
won't take the offer. 1t was tried in New
Orleans and worked admirably.
70 conclude, a word of advice to the
Assessor and Board of EQUALIZATION
Iney would be interesting themselves in
a worthy cause were they to have law
enacted to carry out the very excellent
suggestion of Mr.. MARITIME.
6TTa BELL GAvERIT' Committee.
BY authority of the Federated Trades of
SS' VA