The Kinsley graphic. [volume] (Kinsley, Kan.) 1890-1940, 1892-06-03
soIENTIFIo TAEATIoN.

TO examine the present condition of ths I
farmer as relates TO taxation under the F.
present system and his relationship in .
regard to the three items, rent, interest I.
and profit and also the changes i'm such I
condition and relationship that would /
be effected by the Inauguration of the F.
single tax system
Let us first glance at the condition of |
the tenant farmer Single taNers viii
cordially agree that the landlord takes .
all he can get, hence the tenant farmer
pays as much as any other man viii
offer. This is AIr- Georges economic /
rent SO that the tenant farmer viii
pay us "a single tax, just what he now
pays as rent Oh no, have H0t forgot
ten the improvements nor the ''bare
ground" racket Nor do ] forget the
fact that land under cultivation,
without buildings, rents for just
about as much as the same Land
does with buildings- Nor the further
fact that in many localities iu fact
nearly all over the northwest, one
third or tvo-hfths of the crop pays
Tor a farm, including, house, pasture,
etc, etc, while the same rent is charged
for ploved land, with no house or past
ure. But" says our single tax
friend, che would pay no other tax"
All there, what about the tax upon
valuable lands" in the cities and
towns? Have I not clearly demon
strated that the farmers and their de
pendants, constituting two Efths of the
consumers of the United States, must of
necessity pay tyvo-dfths of the single
tax levied upon all lands occupied for
income producing businesses They do
that now you say? Certainly they do,
and i admit that uuder the single tax
system their taxes would be Hghteued
by Just the amount of direct and lndi-
rect taxes mot rent OF land tuNl now
Included in the price of goods, wares
and commodities-
I am inclined to believe that upon
the whole the single tax might tighten
the burden of the tenant farmer.
How is it with the land owning
farmcr2 Farming is. or should be- "a
profitable or income producing bust
ness. Under the present system, 60 be
upon an equality with merchants and
middIeucu, the farmer should be able
TO include i'm the price of his products
the following items
of bare lanG)-
Improvement rent, Interest upon
cost of improvemeutsl.
Sinking fund for repairs and replace
meut of buildings, fences, work, stock,
machinery and implements
All taxes paid by him
Food, clothing and fuel.
Stopping at this point, tho farmer is
exactly upon an equality with the
merchant, who barely makes a comfort
able living out of his business after pay
ing all charges, including rent, interest
and taxes Anything more the farmer
may receive is the equivalent 70 the
merchants wages or net profits.
How, then. does it fare with the land
owning farmer?
The following item from the pen of
Harry Tracy shows how 10 Jared with
cotton farmer i'm the crop year of lss8-90:
Tho annual balance sheet OF O. cotton farmer
owning 8 % acres OF land and eu-tEaluE 20
acres gst-En1- ting wages ~ So Tlr u5lLlf would
show about AS follows
TO farm and improvements ---.--..s 5000 O1
To stock and implements .-- %. I.1l1. UJ
10 provisions ami Ur1Vcul der. ---.-.---- 5uJ-OJ
To hire hands suncieut go secure crop
az % acres 20 hand at SO cents per
10 use Of implements Iauf Improve
msuts and decline iu vaIle OF stock.
To sIothIng for family Of four persons I0l.05
To doctors bills ----.--- ---------- 5000
10 taxes ou Ll1 JlJ ---------- -----.------r-- % uu
Total Investment. .-...-.-.......s .all.as
HECEIFTs-
By produce go acres OF cotton 1d5 10
pounds lint cotton Per acre AZ cents
per pound -rr-- --- aa-a-+a
Farm, implements and p-o-
--------- Ia 800 as
Net loss 10 farmer annually -.--...- ssLOJ
TaLHsr LElfEL llas ABOVE EllHEL NIG cotton
farmer owning 300 acres of land got
for his years labor experimenting the
production of crop of cotton, bare,
very ''bare subsistence, " including
coarse, common clothing and literally
] came out In debt fo- his taxes and $500
besides So far as his economic rent"
was concerned he got nothing abso-
lutely nothing for the use OF his land or
f capital invested in lmp prove ma auuS1 work
stock, implements, etc. If the annual
balance sheet had been for the crop
year OF ls3I-2 with cotton selling for
/ cents or less, our farmer must have bsr-
rOwsd as much as $1,000 % tide him
over for another crop This throws
t some light upon the causes which CON
spire TO put the southern farmer in
debt
Now ia the case of this farmer it is
shown that he expended only the sum
[ of sz25 for provisions, provender, cloth
/ ing, doctor bills and taxes and had TO
T borrow gs4 of that As there is no
. tariff upon provisions or provsuder, or
Z doctor bills the only reduction I'm his
I expenditure the single tax system would
: have effected is-say g25 tariff ON his
clothing and G25 tax included in the
4 price of his clothing provision and
# proVeuder. and also the SO he paid in
] direct taxes leaving his expenditure at
I E60O-VFIth an addition OF the single tax
/ upon e8, 600, the value OF the ''blre
} land" allowing $4,000 for improve
. ments- Thus we easily prove that the
! single tax would worst our cotton
I planter just GIg5 foF the year. It viii
: be readily understood that IF the price
I of cotton is so low chat the cotton
/ grower is unable TO ''shiftT his economic
rent, f. e. include in the price Of his
] cotton the interest upon the value of
I his bare land, the single tax would
/ have TO come out OF his principal that
. is 20 say me must mortgage his land Tor
I money 20 pay it,
] How Is it with the grain grower OF
I the west and uurthVsest2
Equally with the cotton growers of
I the south the victim OK o damuable con-
/ spirlcy between the plUtucrars of
] Americl and England. his great staple
3 wheat, is lowered ina price by the de-
mouetizatio1 of silver, the legal tender
/ basis of his principal wheat growing
I competitor- So completely Is he the
! victim OF adverse circumstance that all
I business rules and laws of commerce are
I reversed 10 aid in his robbery and spoIiZ-