Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1891-04-09
SINGLE TAX DEPARTMENT.
us 1T RiGHT?-THE ETHICS OF
THE LAND QUESTION"

From an address delivered by Rev.
Dr.J ohm w. Kramer, before the Manhat-
| AN Single Tax club, of New York. DR..
Kramer said:
Land is Gods gift to the people; the
| people need it: no mans share
N it is asked of him. but
every ones right to it is as
serted: nothing else can be justice. The
simple statement would seem to show
| the ethical nature of the case. But
| there are complications and the one
plan proposed to effect the result,
| known as single tax on land values, is
| objected to by many right-feeling per-
| sons, who say that it does not seem that
it would be just to tax landholders out
| Of economic rent, to intercept their in
vestInent in land value, after civilized
society has for long centuries en- four-
aged persons to make such invest ment
| in the conviction that it was both right
and lawful to do so. unless the state.
which has encouraged and projected
| the investment, makes some
compensation for what landlords
must lose. Those who propose
the single tax have not been unmindful
Of the ethical consideration belonging
to it. The lecturer can hardly hope to
present any thing here that is new, but
he may endeavor to offer what study
he can make in some original manner
which possibly may command attention
and challenge conviction.
| AT the outset let us be assured that
an immoral cause can not win assent
from the people and through popular
demand become lawful practice of the
state. Wealth and greed may purchase
legislation which is wrong, and party
feeling may influence legislation which
is unfair, and both Of them may become
Ubiquitous in corrupting the executive
or the judiciary; but the public con-
science is not debauched, and the peo-
pie will not ask for what is thought to
be wrong. A majority of the people
may be mistaken as to the wisdom or
unwisdom of measure, but SO long as
any proposition seems unrightcOus the
people will withhold approval. The
single tax advocates must show that it
is both right and expedient. To the
ethics belonging to this question let us
give bold investigation.
The highest moral consideration here
attaches itself-in the abstract study
and in application of it-not 30 proper
ty, not to land as property, but to land
in its primary relation to man. For con-
slider: 1) all wealth is produced from
land, everything that man has coming
from it; (2) all wealth is produced by
labor; 60 land and labor are necessary
to mans continued existence on the
planet. The one gift to the race, the
absolute and unconditional gift, is land,
on which and from which every child of
man must live. 1t is Gods board, from
which alone the Father in Heaven gives
man his daily bread. Man is before
property IN every moral study. In NOR
ais the right to property comes to the
front when we find man with some
thing in his possession produced from
the land; and then it appears at the
front for mans sake All this is said
because it is of first Importance, and
needs to be referred to incidentally in
our study. And it must not be forgot
ten that the single tax is proposed for
the suppression of an evil-that of pow
erty. The suppression of an evil has
highest rank in public morals. Proper
ty has been confiscated and destroyed,
life has been required of thousands, for
the suppression of evils all through
history, and relief for man and the adj
vancement of the race have justified the
browning of those who were not deter
red by considerations of property or
life as benefactors of the world. Our
question is. Does the single tax pro-
pose to suppress an evil by means that
are not justifiab BILE?
Taxation is for the maintenance and
Al. &c h. &n{@ ~
society. There has been general con-
viction that citizens should be taxed in
proportion to their wealth and revenue.
The whole community is protected in
persons and homes, and provided with
highways, schools and many conven-
fences; those who acquire property
have, in addition, the protection of
| their property. 1t seems that every
one ought to pay something for the pro-
| lection and provision given by the
| State, unless poor and helpless as to
| be a proper case for charitable care.
Peoples probable responded to this
moral persuasion with good will that
was provoked out of existence by learn
| ing that a small class had taken uni Just
advantage. What was true of Athens
| sh,slld have been true in every civiliza-
| ton where patriotism was not dead or
dying. The late Prof. Thorold Rogers
has presented (En. Brit, Finance) this
aspect of Athenian taxation: The ex-
traordinary taxes on property which
the government levied, and which the
contributors paid, apparently with the
greatest readiness" Why SO? We find
that lit was graduated, being 4 heavier
per centage in the case of the richer
citizens than in that of the middle
classes" AS long as the rich hold
to such a compact others pay their
| share willingly. 1t is not SO
| with us. Our taxation not only violates
| the canoDs of Adam Smith, but is also
| unrighteous, and every moral consider
alton demands that it be amended. The
| natural tendency of taxes on commodi-
| ties is to the consumer. The minority
class, who have wealth and opportunity
| found that indirect taxation might be
put on the people. who would feel the
burden while they could not easily dis
cover what it was and whence it came;
'ound that much direct taxation might
be shifted from themselves; and per-
ceived that a portion of wealth which
otherwise would come under taxation
might be hidden, and that where it
could not be hidden there were in some
instances taxing laws which could be
evaded.
There are sorry devices to make per-
jury easy. The taxing officers tell us