The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1895-01-23

We fear we are taking up too much time
and space with this discussion of the single
tax. To the great mass of our readers it
doubtless appeared unreasonable, even be-
fore the debate upon it in these columns
began. And yet there many earnest
and worthy ladies and gentlemen who rush
to its defence and who are entitled to a
courteous reply. We shall try to be as
brief in making it as possible.
We take up the letters published in our
Forum Of last week.
Col. Clough, of the Great Northern, fur
nished statistics to show that already 81
per cent of all direct taxes in this state
rest upon the bare land. We have not
verified his figures: but, if they are cor
rect, the question arises why pile the
other 80 per cent upon the lands; and then
heap the indirect taxes, including over ST.
10000, collected from railroads and other
corporations, on their gross earnings, on
the land also? The land could, in that
case, exclaim, like Cain, My punishment
is greater than 1 bear
Mr.. Geo. V. Wells, of Chicago, comes
next. He argues that all other taxes ex-
cept land tax are shifted by the tax
payer upon the community He says if
you tax railroads improvements, rolling
stock, etc, they charge it up to those
who use the road, by increased rates; but
if you tax their land value they cannot
add it to their rates. Why? What is to
prevent them from doing so? In the first
place the tax on the bare right of way
would not reach one-tenth, nay scarcely
one-hundredth part of the tax their
capital or profits as We have already
shown-the road bed is but u acres to the
mile; while the road is bonded and stocked
for from $4,000 to 100000 per mile. But
why, if the tax the land of the road
bed, the right of way, amounted to any
| thing could they not increase the rates of
| freight and travel to meet it? They are
| complete masters of the situation. They
| own the whole nation. What is to stop
them from adding enough to the freight
| on hardware or dry goods alone to meet
the land tax, and thence put on the peo-
pie? Neither is it true that taxes on i'm
proved land cannot be shifted upon the
community. The landlord fixes his rent to
yield certain per centage his invest
ment. Who shall stop him from raising
| the rent to meet the additional taxes
And if all the owners of lots, on which
| business blocks houses are built, raises
the rent together, what could the mer-
| chants do? They would simply pay the
| Increased rent and add it to the price of
! their goods. And even the price of a va
cant lot is rated by the probable income
it will bring if built upon--the owner holds
| it until he is able to build, or until he can
| sell it to some one who will build. But,
says Mr.. Wells, Mr.. Donnelly would not
buy vacant lot if "the taxes were to
| increase to the full value of the lot and
| increase again whenever the value of the
| lot increased" But if Mr.. Donnelly, or
anyone else wanted that lot for a home he
would have to pay taxes equal to 1.-The
| full value of the lotr' What a charming
prospect for cheap homes for the poor?
| II we understood Mr.. Wells Alright the
| laboring man who settles on a $1,000 lot
will have to pay $1,000 year rent for it,
in the shape of taxes. And as laboring
men have $1,000 bills sticking in all their
| pockets and down in their boot legs that
would not inconvenience them in the slight
| est. But the bankers have no s., 900 bills,
| poor men, and they could not own that
lot. Verify Lazarus has snapped stations
| with Dives and the dogs are licking Dives
| sores.
But he says the rent of buildings is fixed
! by density of population and the necessi-
| ties of people for the use of the
| same, and cannot be raised. Why
| not? If the owners of all the build
! ings in Chicago met tomorrow and agreed
! to raise their rents 10 or 20 or 30 J err cent
who is to stop them? Who stops the trusts
from putting up the prices of commodities ?
! VINO stops the lawyers or the doctors from
increasing their fec bills? And why should
| the merchants hesitate to pay the increased
rent when they can at once recoup them
selves by increasing the price of their
| goods? Why, Mr.. Wells answers his own
argument: He says the people who need
| land as population increases, will be
| forced to adopt less and less comfort
able style of living, take less wages and
comply with the demands of the land
owner" OF course they will. The capacity
of the people to suffer furnishes an unlim-
tied field for the aggressions of capital
Mr. Wells next states that the value of
farm lands is but a small fraction of other
values. Now, the fact is that the report
of the state auditor for 1892 page 1900 shows
that the total value of lands and struc-
lures thereon in 1891 was $213, S42 04S, while
| the value of town and city lots and struc-
! lures theron was s2SS, 732, $50, and the value
! of personal property was $93,O14, 49, This
shows that the repeated statement of the
single takers that the value of the farms
| only 10 per cent of the total land
! values is thousand miles from the truth
in Minnesota And on page &c. same re-
port, Statement D., we find that the value
thereon, was 1894, 634, $50; while the value
of town and city lots exclusive of the
structures thereon, was $2O4, 400, S36. So that
the single tax would release $780, PA of
| city structures from taxation, while it
would release but $19, ,96S of structures
| on farm lands. No 10 per cent business
| about this. And, says Mr.. Elliott if all
| the taxes were piled on bare land the
farmer would be substantially free of
| taxes! And he says the single land tax
! will wipe out the robbery of bonds and
| public debts" How? Will YOU reDudilte