Middletown transcript., 1895-09-07
Written for the TRANSCRIPT
MORE SINGLE TAX.

MORE SINGLE TAX.
EDITOR MIDDLETOwN TRANS
cRIPT, S1R:-You very kindly reprir
: in your last issue my letter to the Wi
mington Sunday Star, and you ais
comment editorially on it. With you
permission will reply to some of you
remarks
| You find fault with my statemen
that while private ownership of land
wrong, yet private possession is neces
sary. You say ''If rents are to b
confiscated, then no one will desire t,
hold the land, for who wants the troubl
and annoyance of possession" wher
there is no compensation"
If you will turn to the United State
census statistics of farms, homes ant
mortgages you will find that 49, 42 pc
cent Of our Delaware farmers have
possession of farms and do not holt
them. 1t is the man who holds anG
does not "possess" i. e., use land, whom
we want to "freeze out" Why should
men be paid for merely holding land
it won't run away and the holding of il
is therefore totally unnecessary. 1t is
the man who works land who benefits
the community and it is the man who
works land who would be benefited by
the adoption of the Single Tax. Do
you dispute this assertion, Mr.. Editor ?
You are anxious that the Single
Takers should give some figures as to
taxes paid etc. in this State and how
we propose to raise these taxes under
the Single Tax. Have little patience
and you'll get these figures, but unless
the writer is very much mistaken, they
will not aid you in upsetting the Single
Tax arguments.
You wish an explanation of our
sixth reason for the selection of Della
ware as the State to concentrate on,
which reason is ''the preponderance of
manufacturing industries in proper
tion to the agricultural interests. The
explanation of this is very simple. We
are trying to reach all the people of the
State and to win majority of them
over to the Single Tax. 1t is very plain
then that it is much easier to reach the
manufacturing communities than to
reach the agricultural ones, as the one
is concentrated on small area, while
the other is widely scattered.
To suppose that this reason meant
that the Single Tax was contrary to the
interest of the farmers and specially
favorable to manufacturers is to ignore
facts.
The Single Tax is tax on land
values and when a man goes in search
of land values he does not go into the
rural communities. He will find land
in plenty there it is true, but land
and land values are two different and
distinct things. The land values are
in the cities and towns.
One of Wilmington's leading real
estate dealers estimates the land values
of his city at $50, 100000. The census
report gives the value of all the Della
ware farms Improvements and land
values) at little less han $40, 900, 900.
Now any farmer will inform you that
much the larger part of his farm value
is in the improvements, and if this be
so, how can anyone claim that the
Single Tax will prove burdensome to
the farmers. 1t must relieve them of |
taxes and add to the burden of the
city and town lands.
The Single Tax means that COM
nuni!ies shall use for governmental
purposes the revenue derived from that |
value which they, as communities,
create, and 1t will stop the robbing of |
individuals which now occurs under
,ur present system, when, under the
yuise of taxation, a portion of mans
Individual production is taken from
lim.
As the Single Tax leaves untouched
o the producer the whole of his pro-
luction it is evident that it will bene-
it the labor, be he farm hand, farmer,
Mill hand or manufacturer.
Yours,
HAROLD SUDELL.
NEW CASTLE, DEL, Sept. I'd, '95.