The advocate., 1892-04-06
SINGLE TAX.
2 Tpn AnvOCATR,


single tax that under its workings The In
creased tax on valuable land for busi
ness purposes, store keeping, etc., woulc
be charged up to the consumer OF the
goods purchased II such system Of
business prevailed the price Of the goodi
(other expenses being equaD would be
regulated by the rate OF tax (rent) OF the
land, which is prepOsterouS, as the rent
Of land could not and never has regu-
lated the price Of an article either OF the
store or farm as is shown by the fact that
corn, whether hogs sell for the same
price, whether from high priced land OF
low priced land, whether one pays % per
acre or $5, and the same 10 the case with
goods. In fact goods sell for less in
large cities where land is high, than In
towns where land is low. Why? Be-
cause business men as a rule In cities de-
pend on large volume Of business out
Of which to get their wages orthe amount
that they are willing to do business for.
No one surely would suppose that If the
rent would be increased 10 per cent. on
the land Of Chicago that goods would 90
up all over the country, neither would
they 60 up In Chicago, owing to the fact
that the prices in Cries or towns with q
lower rate would, by competing for the
trade at the old price, prevent an increase
In the price of goods at Chicago, and II
Chicago held the trade she would be
compelled to be satisfied with less profit.
But If we should admit Mr.. Wards as
sertlon, we claim the same then must be
true with the present system. Mr.. Ward
claims the single tax would DO shifted
with but one or two exceptions, but OF
course he don't tell us how. Would not
"a farmer who rented rich corn land that
would yield say 70 bushels per acre,
play smash compelling the consumer to
pay the difference in his rent for corn
and rent for corn land that pro-
duced 25 bushels per acre, or miner
Of coal or iron with a rich mine and high
rent or a poor mine with low rent or
value, or store keeper whose rent was
high, adding the difference in his rent,
and store keeper whose rent was low,
to the price of his goods, and 30 on
throughout the list, but Mr. Ward can
find but one or two cases. But incomes
would be just the thing 10 tax, and the
tax not be shifted Notwithstanding ex-
perience in this and every country where
such system exists or ever existed, shows
thetax Is not only shifted, but which 10
the same, is evaded In one half OF the
cases at least. Mr.. Wards arguments
are based on the erroneous Supposition
. that business man can simply add his
expenses Sgreat or small, to the price OF
his goods and the consumers OF such
kinds of goods must foot the bill. The
suppositlon being false under free COM
petition the argument also Is false. The
important question is, is It right, Is It
just, to tax individually produced prop
erty for the benefit Of the public, while
we have wealth that has been produced
by the public ample for all such pur-
posesH Our opponents try to weaken
the force Of the facts presented by single
takers by discussing details instead Of
basiC principles. Rent is no part Of
either cost or price. The effects OF a
tariff or q revenue tax lS the same on all
dealers In the taxed products, therefore