Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1891-11-05
SINGLE TAX DEPARTMENT.
THE NEW ABOLITION.

| LORD Garrison Before the Chicago (lll.1
Single Tax Club. September 3. 1891.
CONTINUED FROM LAST IssUE.)
We are the new abolitionists, because
| our object is be attained purely by the
abolition of vicious taxes, taking off
one by one, until land values alone sup
ply government with revenue. While
| working for the ideal society where
justice shall make charity obsolete, we
strike directly at the obstacles which
lie neal est our land We do not ques-
ton the result
ave may not live to see the day,
But earth shall glisten in the ray
OF the good time coming"
l have time only to suggest a few of
the points wherein single tax puzzled
me, hoping that the reasons which dis
sipated my objections may remove SIM
liar ones from some hearers mind
had no hesitation in accepting the
basic proposition of our creed. that man
has a right to the use of the earth
so long as all wealth is drawn
from that source by the application of
labor, and to deny human being &C
cess to this great storehouse of nature
is, of course, wrong. The simple state
ment carries with it conviction, and for
the bounty of the Creator to be con-
trolled or monopolized by individuals
for aggrandizement at the expense of
their fellow creatures, is manifestly
unjust and indefensible, and needs no
demonstration.
That this is our strong fortress is mani
fest by the disinclination of ous oppo-
nents to debate it. l never yet met one
who tried to controvert our principle.
1t is about details and methods and re-
suits that the controversy always RACES
The failure of all attempts to reach
personal property is widely recognized,
the rich escaping and the poor and con-
scientious making up the deficit The
tax on incomes leads to false returns
and is a premium on deception. So
students of long experience, like David
A. Wells and Edward Atkinson, con-
tend that real estate should bear the
burden, because it lies open to the sun
and can not be hidden, and the tax will
distribute itself most fairly. Strange
that these men, with whom we are so
nearly in agreement should range
themselves among our opponents.
Now the single tax would lift every
burden from the product of labor, not
taxing the houses and improvements
put upon the land, as the economists l
have mentioned propose to do. We are
offenders of property and insist upon
the sacredness of mems just earnings
and their inalienable right to exchange
their products or services to the best
advantage.
Our difference arises in our definition
of property, under which head we
deny that land properly comes. 1t is
the element from which property is
evolved by labor, but in equity is no
more property than the air or the sun
shine. 1t has been treated as such, be-
cause, unlike air and sunshine, it is
possible to monopolize it, but the gen.
sis of every title deed rests on 'force,
fraud or cunning''-to borrow Mr..
Spencer's words. We do not deny that
the law considers land property. but
thirty years ago it also recognized the
ownership of human flesh. We say
with regard to land, as the righteous
Vermont judge said to the STAKEHOLDER
claiming his fugitive: "Show me bill
of sale from the Almighty and / will
deliver him to you"
I was puzzled at first about land
bearing the sole burden of taxation. be-
cause 1 thought the farmer would suffer
most. But when l learned that land
values only were to be taxed, not land
l saw that farmers would pay less in
stead or more, because the value of
farms, irrespective of all improvements
would be small, while under the pres
ent system the more industrious and
self-denying a farmer is, the more the
tax gatherer takes from him. Two
farms, side by side, having the same
site value, are taxed to-day in proper
ton to their working, and the thrifty
farmer is made to pay heavily because
of his industry, and his shiftless neigh
Dor is let off with small contribution.
Thrift is punished and neglect is re-
warded The single tax would leave |
to labor it's entire earnings The real |
land values are to be found in cities. |
What enormous farms the little lot un- |
der this building would buy!
The hardest thing for me to under |
stand was the fact that land taxes can |
not be shifted by the landlord, and to- |
day neither Mr.. Wells nor Mr. Atkin- |
son can see it, thereby differing with |
the recognized authorities on political !
economy.
1 thought if l leased lot of land, / |
could make my tenant pay the tax back |
to me in added rent 1t seems as if / |
might do so. But it takes two to make |
a bargain, and it is not what ask that |
get, but as near that as my customer |
will give. I get all that can, and he
gives the least that he can and the rent |
is fixed at the line where neither will |
advance or recede. The taxes | must |
pay. because he has given me all he
will, and if / should insist that they go |
with the rent, he would seek other lots. |
heavily taxed contained stores where
the lowest priced goods are sold. This
convinced me that the landlord was
not recovering his taxes from the pub
lie, but that the advantage of situation
more than offset them. In other words |
he simply paid for privilege worth
the price, and to call such payment
tax, when value is fully returned, is
truly misnomer. So, although we use
the term single tax to give distinct
idea of our method, it is in no sense a
burden, does not partake of the nature
of tax. and can not enter into the cost
of production. This is an important
point, because our claim for the justice
of the single taE rests upon the impos-
sibility of shifting it upon labor and
the trouble with the present system is,
that taxes are made to be shifted and
eventually are unloaded upon It's
10 ii 81