The great West. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1889-18??, 1892-11-04
THE CONSUMER PAYS II.

Kent OF Valuable Lands In Cities il Paid BY
! the People as Consumers.
had intended to write series of ar
ticles upon the subject of taxation in
general, and on some specific form Of
taxation in particular, but it appears as
y shall have to turn my attention to
the task ct defending my position in re-
gard to the single tax. have just read
the communication from A. w. Turner,
IN criticism of my views, and as the
Ideas Mr.. Turner advances are a fair
sample of the absurdities generally Of
tered as arguments by our single tax
friends, will briefly analyze his COM
munication.
Mr.. Turner either asserts or leaves us
to infer that he holds: First, that rent
is not shifted By tenants under the pres
emit system. Second, that rent under
the present system Is not charged up to
the consumers Of goods and the users OF
services, and that the single tax (eco-
nomic rent) would not be so charged
under the single tax system. Third,
that trent il no part of either cost or
price"
It is passing strange that Mr.. Turner
does not grasp the idea that, as single
taxer, he destroys with his own argu-
ments all reason for his being. If, as
he says, rent under the present system
is not included in the price of goods,
commodities and services, and is not
borne by the whole people but is paid
by merchants and business men out ola
special fund they have set apart for that
purpose, then the whole argument OF
the single takers, tending to show the
necessity and efficacy of their system as
a remedial measure, falls to the ground
of its own weight, and the size Of this
special fund in each individual case
measures the time for which the mer-
chant can avoid bankruptcy.
The truth is, however, that Mr.. Tur-
ner is grievously mistaken in the prem
ises Under the present system all mer-
chants and others occupying land for
income producing businesses (merchan-
dising) who fail to include all expenses,
including rent, freight, insurance, etc.,
in the estimate of first cost of goods on
their shelves, must sooner or later go
into bankruptcy. In the case of manu-
featured articles, interest upon the value
of the plant Gland, building, machinery,
etc. ) where the manufacturer owns the
land and buildings, and in case he is
tenant, rent for the same are items of
expense which enter into the cost of the
manufactured article. In large cities, as
in Chicago, owing to the greater volume
of business, or number of sales smaller
profit on each sale makes up the neces-
sary gross profit on the gross sales out of
which the high rents may be paid and
yet the usual net profit be realized on
the capital invested. On the other hand,
in the smaller cities and towns, although
rents are much lower, yet on account of
the smaller volume of business, or num-
Der of sales, a much larger gross profit
must be realized on each sale in order
that a satisfactory net profit may be
realized after paying all expenses, or
items of cost, including rent But in
each case, in the large city as in the
small town, rent is included in the price
of all goods sold. Owners of land, oc-
cupying such land, in their own build
ings for income producing businesses,
receive, first, rent Cor land and build
ings): second, interest upon capital in
vested in goods; third, profit or wages.
Of all this they retain possession. Ten
ants on such land, who own neither
land or building, receive just the same
items, but the rent for land and build
ing they must hand over to the land
lord who owns such land and building.
In both cases all three items, rent, in
terest and profit, are included in the
prices of goods sold and collected from
the customers, or people. The differ
ence proposed by the single tax is to
pay the land rent to the people, or gov
eminent (the government becoming
the universal landlord), as tax, in
stead of paying it to the individuals;
but defy Mr.. Turner, or any other
man, to show wherein the person occu-
plying the building and land, would pay
any more of such land rent than was
paid by any of his customers who con-
sumed as much as he did.
Now as to that specious but sophisti-
cal argument concerning corn, or other
products produced on farm lands of
varying values or prices and of varying
degrees of fertility, there is no argu-
ment about it, if one does but probe the
subject to the bottom.
Value attaches to agricultural land,
first, because of It's relative nearness to
good markets and consequent relative
smallness of the expensive item called
transportation. Second, because of its
relative greater fertility and the conse-
quent relative greater yield of farm
products for any given amoant of labor
expended. Now, where is Mr.. Turner's
argument? The man occupying the
more valuable land-say, for instance,
ssa farmer who rented rich corn land
that would yield say 70 bushels to the
acre. does, in fact, compel the
consumer to pay the difference
in his rent and the rent for corn Land
that produced only Is bushels per acre"
Could Mr.. Turner see beyond the end of
his nose he would perceive that profits
lin all avocations) increased in exactly
the same ratio as rents, such increase iA
profits being in fact the basis and
excuse for the increase in rents.
Profits make value; value is the basis of
rent. A certain amount of labor equals
in one case 20 bushels at 20 cents, or
s14; and in the other case Is bushels at
20 cents, or $500. Rent in the first case,
or Log; rent IN the second
case, one third, or S1.66, and 1888 net
wages for the given amount of labor,
while the first party receives 1888 for
II. ~ 1u1 NoxD vuhof