The representative., 1895-04-03
A STRONG ARTICLE.
c. j. BuelFs SOphistries ON the Single
Tax Question.

A STRONG ARTICLE.
G. j. Buell's SOphistries ON the Single
Tax Question.
To the Editor:
have read with a great deal of interest
the sigle tax discussion in your paper and
hoped that in time c. j. Buell. would get
the scales off his eyes, but see from his
last communca ton that he is as blind as
when 1 gave him up for hopeless case
years ago. 1 fully agree with you, Mr..
Editor that there is no reason why all
forms of property should not bear their
equal share towards the support of the
government" except the dwelling used ex-
clusively by the owner as homestead,
not exceeding in value $1,000, and personal
property not exceeding $500; these excep
tions will be for the benefit of every one
and cannot be called class legislation, but
of course the poorer class of home owners
will be the most benefited because the $500
will cover all they possess.
Mr.. Buelrs distinction between kinds OF
property, land and houses" is as
vague as his reasoning and will not pass
muster. Let's look at his reasoning for a
moment. He says: "The presence and ne
cessity of the whole people have caused
our lots to have value The people, the
whole people, the community, having caus-
ed that value to exist confess 1 cannot
see any reason why the people shouldn't
have it, and 1 can't see any reason why
we should have it, 1 believe whoever pro-
duces a thing owns it, the people produced
the value of those lots, therefore the peo-
pie own that value Mr. Donnelly goes
upon one of his lots and builds a house.
That house is his creation, the product of
his labor. Therefore the house is his The
public had nothing to do with the house,
therefore the public has no right or title
in it,
In the first place, the term people, as
used by Buell. and others in this connection,
is very misleading. 1t is narrow when ap-
piled to those who really produce the val
ue," and broad when applied to those who
compose the community" 1t is narrow
because comparatively few build and own
the structures they occupy, and it is the
building, occupying and improving which
increases the value, and this increase goes
to the structure as much as 1t does to the
land. At first glance some will deny this
point, but close study will soon con-
vince them of it's truth. The building, OF
course, decays, wears out; and has to be
replaced in about 80 years perhaps on an
average, while the land remains forever.
1t is not strange, therefore, that at first
glance the whole increased value should"
be credited on the land because such a con-
clusion is the result of association. Sup
pose 1000 men go into a new county, on
some line of railroad, pick out suitable
place for city, buy section of land for
$40 an acre, plat it and each one proceeds
to build a house or store building to cost
not less than $1,000. The result is thriv-
ing village at once. Business goes forward
exactly as at any place of it's size. New
will he attracted Some will want
to buy lots to build on, while others will
want to rent a house to live in, and
place to do business in. Land at $40 an
will make quarter acre lots cost $3.50
apiece, and business lots 20 feet front at
about SIPS apiece. The newcomers would
not think of buying lots at the first cost,
but would be perfectly willing to give $25
to $50 apiece for residence lots and $50 to
$1O0 for a business lot and in nine cases
out of ten would prefer to give this in
creased price rather than take the
chances of losing his $1,000 by first joining
the colony and helping to found and start
the new town. If the 1000 men are obliged
to take the chances" is it not fair and
just for them or their successors to share
in the profits? $1,000 farm house located
on this same land could not have been
rented with 66X125 feet of ground for 50 a
month before the town was located, put
afterwards it would easily command $40 to
SIS, depending on the demand, is 1t not
of the increased value? Is it not equally
plain that the land and house go together
for better worse" in all future calcula-
tions, except, as time and population in
crease, the place prospers while the house
goes the ways of the earth and has to be
replaced? Man made the value in both
cases and to give God the credit of all
that properly attaches to the land is beg
gng the question.
God has no more to do with adding to
the value of farm or a town lot than
He has to the marble after it is carved
into a beautiful piece of statuary. Again,
the floating population" people who come
today and go tomorrow, add nothing to
the value of property, but yet this element
is included in the terms people," "popu-
lation" and Community" Renters and
transients, who have nothing and do not
expect to reside permanently in the place,
and who simply live from hand to mouth,
do not add materially to the value of
property; not having any interest in the
place except what they can get out of 1t,
they surely do not expect or deserve any
of the increased value The farmer who
takes a comparatively worthless piece of
land, and by years of labor, draining,
blowing, setting out trees, orchards build
ings houses and barns, is just much
entitled to the full measure of Increased
value" as is the sculptor who chisels the
marble. The same reasoning that applies
to the value of the house also applies to
the land.
The great bulk of taxes goes to pay pub
lie officials, and for the protection of
houses, personal property and individuals,
and it is only just that each kind of prop
erty should bear it's own burden. Why
should contractors. who build houses to
sell-"speculators'' just as much as the lot
owner-be favored with total exemption
from taxation? Does not such a demand
smack of selfishness? When contractors,
bankers, merchants, money-loaners and
#..bloated bondholders' show such a will
ingness to join hands with selfishness, ig-
.norance and egotism, to place the whole
burden of taxation on land? Is it not
time for farmers and home-owners to line
up in self-defense?
4 Single tax means "confiscation of land
values" so admitted by George, Shearman
and McGlynn, and incidentally the confis-
cation of "house value,'' 1 should say.
Farm lands rent for one-third of the crop
to take all of that value Uull
rental value), is bad as highway rob-
berry; and when Buell. says that very much
of the farm land has little or no rental
value" aside from the improvements, he
simply exposes his ignorance or malicious
ness by stating an untruth. Vacant land
10 miles out from Minneapolis rents for
house and barn adjoining, which cost as
high as $1,000, only brings S. a month with
an acre of ground for a garden patch If
the man who owns the 200 acres had TO
turn over the $600-full rental value-for