The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1891-03-29
TIE SINGLE TAX
An Explanation and Defense of
the Theory.
MONOPOLY is A WET BLANKET
What the Single Tax Would do for Industry
Raise Wades, Lower Rents, and Enable
the Country to be Developed.
To the Editor of THE HERALD:

To the Editor of THE HERALD:
The Single Tax theorist proposes to abol
1sh all the taxes on Improvements on land
personal property, aud all products of hu
man industry and instead thereof to levy q
single tax on land values. He proposes to
increase this tax until it absorbs about 90
per cent, of the rental value of land, re-
| serving the right to take the 100 per cent.
| whenever the welfare of the community de.
mands it. The per centage of rent which the
| private landloard is permitted to retain is
merely an expediency to keep land titles
the same as at present, and the ten per
cent, or possibly in some communities
more, is remuneration for collecting the
land tax from tenants and paying the re-
| malnder over to the government The rem
TAI value OF LAND Is generally about five per
! cent, OF the actual cash value of the lano
Figuring on this basis any one can ascer-
tain just how he would be personally af-
1ected by this system of taxation. 1t is
calculated with mathematical accuracy that
II W per cent, of the rental value of land
which now goes to private landlords was
| diverted into the public treasury there
would not only be sufficient for present
governmental expenses but an immense
surplus would be collected which could be
used for the general benefit of society.
In New York city for instance, the esti-
mated rental value of the land is 500, 600, 600
not including $50 600, 900 per year in taxes
tnns making the rental value of the land
S15,00O,0 O0 annually. The government ex-
penses for the city are only $32, 100000 an
nually. About this proportion exists Wher-
| ever estimates have been made. Indeed
| 1t seems to be a law Of nature that rent will
! always exceed the social needs of COM
munity and that it will increase about forr
times as fast as population.
BY what right do you propose to take
this entire rental value of land and make
the landlords support the government! is
asked. Simply this: The rental value of
land is created entirely by the community.
The lot across the street from where am
writing was without value twenty years
ago. Since then this part of Salt Lake has
developed rapidly and is now worth g, 600.
That is its rental value is 500 per wear. or
. per cent, of $1,000, and its rent capital
lied Tor the next twenty years, which rep
resents its selling price, is s., 900. TIE hand
of labor has never touched the lot The
owner does not reside in the CITY, But
thousands of people have settled around it.
School houses have been built, churches
erected, homes beautitied disagreeable
things kept away and agreeable things en-
tered. The value, therefore, has increased
caused entirely by the growth of the com
his. The community have created this
value; 1t is, therefore, rightfully theirs.
The single tax, by absorbing this increased
value each year, is merely the method by
which this value created by the community
is returned. The single tax is, therefore,
not tax at all, but the process by which
rent is taken by the state. The single tax
will thus abolish land monopoly and with
1T the pernicious effects of land speculation,
Land booms will no more be possible and
the men who expect to grow rich by sud
den rises in land values will be compelled
to turn their attention to productive indus
tries. Land monopoly is the curse of this land
and every other. Ireland, which our pro-
tective tariff friends say is ruined by Brit
1sh free trade. is ruined by nothing but
landlordism. During one OF the heaviest
famines of recent years in Ireland when
the American people shipped $40, 000, 600 of
charitable contributions to Ireland over
$3.50, 600 600 of eatables left Ireland for
Great Britain to pay land rent. Millions
of acres of the land in Kansas, Nebraska.
Wisconsin and many other western states
are rapidly falling into the hands of for
eign landlords by the foreclosure of mort
cages. And at present millions of dollars in
interest are annually paid to these foreign
syndicates. which is only another name for
ground rent. With every increase in the
efficiency of labor saving machinery, with
the concentration of population, landlords
who as mere landlords produce nothing, get
a larger and larger share of wealth pro-
duced, capitalists smaller and smaller in
terest and laborers less and less wages.
Land, labor and capital are the factors
of production. Labor and capital operat-
ing on land or natural opportunities will
produce wealth. In no other way can
wealth be produced. If, therefore, land is
monopolized the landlord can demand from
labor and capital all they produce save
barely sufficient to enable labor to exist
and exact from capital all save the mini |
mum interest at which it will continue to |
operate. Thus, we see the amount paid the |
landlord must reduce the return to labor |
vent and discourage improvements and |
progress by depriving capital and labor of |
their just returns. From this we see that
the real fight is not between labor and CAP |
ltal but between labor and capital on one |
side and landlordism on the other. Land |
lordism is the common enemy of all and |
must be destroyed. For example, A comes
into community with 100000 with the
intention of developing some industry. He
finds the desirable location for his business
monopolized and must pay perhaps $25, 900 |
for the necessary land. This is just % per
cent. taken out of productive industry and
wages are reduced that amount and the
cost of his wares increased the same
amount. For while only $75, 900 is actually
invested in the manufacture of the goods
s25, 900 in invested in the land for which he
must receive a return. So, in this case
where the capitalist is also landlord the
OF his wares pay the land rent in
every article they buy. Land monopoly
vacant lots at speculation prices so that