People's voice. [volume] (Wellington, Sumner County, Kansas) 1890-1917, 1892-04-29
The SINGLE lax.

UdWH inc uTt u MI. W. IL l. NohC
field, of Lawrence, Kan.
Because of this | am neither dismayed
or surprised. | am not surprised, be-
cause as a state member Of the national
committee of the single tax league, Mr..
Wakefield could do no less than take up
the cudgels in behalf of his pet theory
anduniversal panacea. lam not dismay-
ed, because l know what to expect in the
line of rebuttal, and am familiar with
the calm assumption of infallibility
single takers are prone to parade in IA
vor Of their improved assertions. Allow
me s0lce to notice few of the ideas
adv; ed by Mr. Wakefield:
I do not question Mr. Wards honesty Of in
tentiOn as refOrmer, but | think he should
have at least superficial knowledge Of Ques-
ton before he discusses it As well might one
open a discussion as TO whether or not twice
two are four as 10 reopen the long and well set
tied question Of the ability Of a landlord under
the single tax to shift his rent to his tenants.
| answer that one might as well con-
tend that the moon is made of green
cheese, as to assert that under the single
tax system any one would pretend to
own or hold land, except by virtue of
theownership Of Improvements thereon.
And one might as well contend that
twice two are five as to deny but that
under the single tax system persons
without investing one cent inland could
monopoliZe as much land as they were
able to improve, provided they paid as
much tax as any others would offer.
Does Mr. Wakefield pretend to assert
that they would pay this rent, or land
tax ont of a special fund they previous
ly set apart for that purpose?
The rent for such Improvements, as
well as the land, QOcation-site) would
be paid by the tenant to the owner of
the improvements, who would pay the
land rent to the people, or government,
and keep the rent for the improvements.
Land is called valuable" because of the
largeprofts pertaining to the occupation
Of such particular land, las a site, or bust
cess location, which large profits are
divided between the business man and
the landlord so that only portion of
the ''unearned increment falls to the
share of the landlord as land owner,
portion falling to the share of the
owner Of the building, and yet another
portion to the capital invested in the
business for which such building is Oc-
cupied. Under the single tax system,
as under the present system, all three
of these portions would be shifted on
the consumers of goods, wares and COM
modities sold, or services rendered upon
such site Mr.. Wakefield says:
Mr. Ward Overlooks the fact that land is a
fixed quantity, which cannot be increased or
diminished, and that the power now possessed
bylandlOrds TO exact tribute from labor rests
upon their power to hold idle land out Of use by
paying only a nominal tax upon it. If they
were taxed to the full use value of idle or va
cant land they could not afford to hold il idle,
and would be compelled to improve or part with
tito those wishing to use it.
If l were oven willing to grant that
there would be no idle or vacant land
under the operation of the single tax,
should yet contend that none but those
who occupied residence buildings,
owned by themselves and farmers (so
long as farm products are worth less
than cost, would pay any direct tax for
the use of land. Mr.. Wakefield SAYS:
OF course under the rental tax rents would
quickly and largely fall, because vacant land
could be held only at a loss, hence would be i'm
proved by some one, and the gSeat increase in
building caused by access to vacant land would
reduce rent Of buildings to correct rates of in.
terest on cost of buildings plus the rental value
Of the land. In cities and villages il would
largely reduce rents; hence upon Mr. Wards
own theory the consumer would pay less, as
well as pay to himself instead Of to a landlord.
In this proposition is contained the
basic fallacy of the single tax theory
Suppose Mr. Wakefield tries to prove
that in cities and villages it 1.-THE
single taxi would largely reduce rents
of valuable lands or business proper
ty.' If this statement were true, there
would no greater value attach to one
piece Of land than to another, under the
present system. If a man could not get
one piece of land Got upon which t.
erect building, and engage in bust
ness, he would simply have to builC
upon another, so that all lots of the
same size would be worth the SAME
money. The mistake the single taxer.
make is in supposing that one can move
the business center of city by simply
building quarters for it to occupy. L
is the fact that such scheme will no
work that makes some lots worth many
thousands of dollars and other lots
few dollars only. Business building,
are built under the present system
just as fast as the rent will pay
correct rates of interest on COS
of buildings" and current correct?
rates of interest upon the value of thu
land crental value of the land'O.
Again Mr.. Wakefield says:
But his most astonishing affirmation is tina
under the rental value tax system vacant LAM
would pay no taxes, when the system is TO ia.
and according to its value regardless Of i'm
provementS After this It is not necessary 70
Mr. Ward 10 say he cannot comprehend tn
system. or at least that he does not Durin!
the recent St Louis conference vacant 10
was pointed out to US which had Just bee
leased by its millionaire owner who lives i
Paris, for Sls5OO per year the lessee to pay al
taxes and assessments, and at the end Of III
fifty years lease the splendid building to b
erected by the lessee becomes the property o
the landlord
Close reasoners will at once perceiv
that in the foregoing criticism Nj
Wakefield does but reafirm my mos
astonishing affirmation" Does he thin
that the lessee he speaks of would hav
paid the S1S,5OO year if there had bee
proviso in the lease that he (th
lessee) should never erect any building