Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1892-05-18
friends, I will briefly analyze his COM

cab SySUtUl- SSCOuu, bIldI TcAb uuucT
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 'rent is no part of either cost or
price"
1t is passing so.a3re that Mr.. Turner
does not grasp the idea that, e.s a 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 of a
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 90
into bankruptcy. In the case of manu-
factured articles, interest upon the value
of the plant Qand 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, much larger gross profit
must be realized on each sale in order
that 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 (for 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
ernment (the government becoming
the universal landlord), as a tax, in
stead of paying it to the individuals;
but 1 defy Mr.. Turner, or any other
man, to show wherein the person ocou-
pying 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 it's
relative greater fertility and the oonse-
quent relative greater yield of farm
products for any given amount of labor
expended. Now where Is Mr.. Turner's
argument? The man occupying the
more valuable land-say, for instance,
"a 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 in
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 30 cents, OF
S14; and in the other case 25 bushels al
30 cents, or $500. Rent in the first case
one third, or S4.66: rent in the second
case, one-third, or $1.66, and 3.33 net
wages for the given amount of labor
while the first party receives 1898 fol
the same amount of labor. Now what
should, under proper conditions, set the
price for the corn in both cases. say
land of average fertility and an average
haul to market; the items of cost being
interest on value of land and buildings
machinery, work animals, tools. etc
and cost in labor Of production. Tht
occupying land owners, not tenants
adjusting the price at which corn i:
sold. At this price both the tenants
and the landlords S corn is sold, rent anc
labor cost being blended together, while
the consumer pays both the rent ant
the labor cost. But why does Mr.. Tur
ner select tenants as illustrations.
Why not come to the point and, ac
knowledging that land owning farm.
ers should (if they do mott receive ECO
nomic rent" l. e., interest on value OF
land, endeavor to show that such rent
Is not shifted" by the various middle
men, grain dealers, millers. ETC., until
at last it is paid by the consumer of the
/ finished product.
, But it is matter of grave doubt if
those farmers who occupy and farm the
land of which they are the ostansiblt
owners, receive any economic rent al
, all. The grain crop OF last year wa.
worth e739, ,000, 900. OF this. the farmer
the producer-got only 800, 900, 600
Transportation, middlemen and other
charges, after it left the farm, consumed
the other $4,000 900. It is very doubt
ful if the s4O0, ,o0o, 600 the farmers got paic
the bare cost of production, putting