Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1891-06-18
A. H. M'CARTY.I
A Plano Citizen Advocates and Argues In
Favor of the Single Tax Theory.
Its Effect on Labor.

! The various remedies that are flooding
| the press which propose to ameliorate the
condition of the masses, seem to Inc to be
mere subterfuges. They propose to correct
Il wrong by creating another. The farmers
| justly claim that they have been robbed for
the benefit of the monopolists and the
remedies suggested. instead of stopping all
robbery simply propose another form OF the
same thing The sub-treaSury scheme
proposes to use the government to starve
| one part of the people into paying a monop-
oily price for bread. Instead of individuals
forming a corner on breadstuffs the farmers
propose that the government shall corner it
and give them the benefit. What is this
but class legislation
Because monopolists have been in the
habit of squeezing the farmer and all other
classes is it right to use the government to
increase the price of bread to the people by
the government advancing money on it and
rendering it unnecessary to sell it, In
other words the farmer simply steps into
the shoes of the monopolist against whom
he has been inveighing all these many
years. We do not want another wrong to
correct wrongs now existing, but we want
the present wrongs removed. We want all
classes placed on an equal footing under
the government. We want all class legis-
lation repealed. We want labor to be free
and all taxes that burden labor removed. Is
not all wealth the product of labor? Does
not tax laid on labor tend to restrict pro-
duction and act as clog to industry.
When you tax everything produced by la
Dor, you are clogging the very foundation
of wealth. Wealth is not bad thing or a
thing to be suppressed. Wealth is the thing
most to be desired by every individual. 1t
is the unequal distribution of wealth that
should be stopped. How can it be stopped,
VIII the sub-treasury stop it, or will it only
shift the poverty from the land-owning
class to those who are so unfortunate as to
not own any land. l want to know how the
Sub-treaSury scheme will benefit the man
who works but owns no landl If it in
creased the price of agricultural products.
will not the landlord be enabled to charge
more rent. and thereby appropriate all the
benefit to HIMSELF Then why not adopt
system that will give every man an equal
chance, that will give every man the maxi
mum product of his LAHORE There is but one
thing that gives any promise of accomplish
ing this result, and that is the single tax on
land values.
A great many people hold wholly errone-
Gus opinions as to what would result from
the adoption of this principle.
1t Is hardly necessary to explain to those
who have made study of economic sub
jectS that all taxes, no matter on what they
are at first levied. must ultimately fall on
the producer. All wealth being simply the
is just so much labor taken for that pur-
pose, and the tax that is levied the farthest
from the laborer to begin with falls on him
the heaviest in the end, for it is shifted
from one to another over ana over, and at
each shift an additional tribute is levied
until when it reaches the producer it is
something like the skeptic's contribution
to the heathen-'one cent for the heather
and dollar to get it there
Now as all wealth is primarily dependent
on land for its existence, is it not obvious
that to place the whole burden of taxation
on land values alone, that the tax would be
distributed on all wealth with unerring and
absolute equalitya
The fact that all improvements would be
exempted from taxation would be the great
est imaginable incentive t. improvement
And the further fact that land held out of
use for speculative purposes would be taxed
just as highly as similar land which was
used to its fullest extent, would destroy the
speculative value Of land and render it ac-
cessihle to those who would use ii. Specu-