Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1892-04-20

ers assert that under the operation of
their system farm lands would pay COM
| paratively little tax, the valuable lands
in the cities and towns paying the great
/ bulk of the taxes. | assert:
First-That under single tax system
land would pay no taxes, the taxes be-
ing paid by individuals for the use of
! land.
! Second-That under their system,
/ those who occupied the valuable land in
the cities and towns would really pay
no tax at all for the use of such land
Single takers wish to abolish tariffs
and revenue laws and all forms of indi-
rect taxation and levy direct tax upon
land values l assert that in inaugurat-
ing the single tax, they would simply
substitute for the present system of in
direct taxation another indirect system
equally as pernicious and unfair in its
! operation and effects as the present one
An elaborate discussion of this
weighty question would occupy too
much space. and l merely wish to for
mulate few ideas. Stripped of all
superhuous verbiage, the single tax
means the letting of sites and locations
to the highest bidder. The rental
value is the greatest sum of money of
fered by any individual for the use of
piece of land. The private or indi-
vidual ownership of land, under the
single tax, would be a thing of the past.
Users and occupiers of land would be
tenants of the people, with the right of
ownership in all improvements and
ability or right to sell such improve
ments upon vacating the land. If forced
to vacate. by reason of higher bidder,
presume the improvements would be
appraised and the new tenant would
have to pay for them.
Now, suppose the single tax in force
in city. The land in such city con-
sists of three classes only-vacant land,
land occupied for residence purposes,
and land occupied for income producing
businesses. Vacant land would paw no
taxes. Each and every inhabitant
would pay the single tax or rent for the
land he or she occupied for residence
purposes. Who would pay the rent for
the use of land occupied by stores, fac
tories, banks, offices and all other build
ings in which are carried on profit MAX
ing businesses? Would the promoters
or business" men pay it? If yes, what
would they pay it out of? Most decid-
edly would the rent be included in the
price of all merchandise. wares, COM
modities, services and even. in the case
of banks, in the rate of interest paid
for money. 1t cannot by any possibili-
ty be any other way.
Now go to the country around the
city and put the single tax in operation
upon the farms. (The tax may be light
and it may not, 1 think not, but cannot
ella borate now) The farmers will con-
tinue to go to the city and purchase
their goods and supplies, their machin-
cry and merchandise, and also to bor-
row their money, consult their LAWYERS
and physicians, etc. Those they EN-.
ploy and those from whom they buy
are the individuals who occupy the val,
liable land, which single takers say will
pay the bulk of the taxes. And it is
doubtless true that the bulk of the
taxes will be received by the govern
ment from the hands of those individ.
uals who occupy this valuable" land.
But where would the money come from
with which the tax was paid? 1t would
be paid as the tariff and internal reve-
nue. tax is now paid, by every man,
woman and child as a consumer. and
the individuals who occupied this valu.
able land would pay no more of such
tax than did their bookkeepers or
clerks, provided they lived equally as
well, i. e., consumed as much the one as
the other,
1t formulateS as follows:
First-The single tax in its applica-
ton to land occupied for income pro-
ducing businesses, would simply be an
indirect tax, levied on consumption.
Secondhand owning farmers Il. e..
farmers owning the improvements on
the land they occupied) would then paw
as much rent (tax) as is now paid by
tenant farmers.
Third-In addition to the direct tax.
| (rent) paid for the use of their land.
farmers aud their dependents consti-
tuting fully two-ffths of the nations
consumers, would pay two-ffths of the
tax (rent) collected for the use of ''valu-
able lands in cities and towns. If not.
why not?-George C. Ward, in Topeka
Advocate.