The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1895-01-02
SINGLE TAX DEFENDED,

DOStOI. Dec. II.
SINGLE TAX DEFENDED,
Letter From Mr.. c. j. Buell., the Fa-
NOUS APOSTLE of the Theory.
Che following article should have been
published last week. but was accidentally
mislaid.-Ed. Representative
To the Editor:
In the Representative for Dec. II Mr.. Dom
nelly replies to a single taxer in such way
as to cause me to wish that the eminent
senator might have turned his wonderful
power Of intellect little more critically
upon the subject.
In this brief note will confne myself to
one or two points. leaving some Of the
others to a later time.
Speaking of the fact that under the single
tax each holder would pay in taxes the
annual value of bare land or the annual
ground rent, Mr.. ,Donnelly comments as
follows: Ht's
But wherein would he be any better off :?
Suppose one-third of the crop IS equal. to
$500 and he now pays that for rent to the
landlord, wherein will he be any better
off to make him pay that $500 in taxes to
the government?'' 7-.N
He would be better off by Just the taxes
ne now pays. Under present conditions he
pays $500 per year rent and lot of taxes
besides, say $500. Even under L. DIS inter-
probation of the single tax he would only
pay the $780, making clear gain of $500
Besides this, the landlord would have
his millions diminished by the amount of
$500
But Mr.. Donnelly's Interpretation is not
correct BY destroying land speculate ton
the single tax would bring into use much
valuable land that is now held idle thus
reducing the price of land and hence redue-
ing rents. Land rents are unnaturally high
now Just because 1t is more profitable for
spectators to hold land for the rise than
to sell it or let it at fair price
Mr.. Donnelly also seems to fall into an
error in the following Illustration of
town lot:
We'll, let us see. Here is town lot
worth $1,000 with building on it worth
$1,000 more; and we will say the tax now is
x3D The single tax prevails and the 800
tax on the building is taken off the building
and put on the lot. and so the building
goes free and the lot is taxed $500; and the
owner pays just much as he did before.
1t is like the boy who was riding home
from mill on his old horse Dobbin, with
sack of -four in front of him. what
shame he says, ito make poor Dobbin
carry me and the flour both; | will help
him. and so he puts the sack of flour on
his own shoulders-and Dobbin's load is
just what it was before!'
The error lies in supposing that all the
tax removed from the building must
necessarily be put onto the same lot that
the building stands on A part of the tax
removed from the building would fall on
vacant lots. Thus lowering the taxes ON
the improved lots and increasing them on
vacant ones.
But why should Mr.. Donnelly guess at
these things. and guess SO wide of the
mark, when exact statistics are easy
to get.
In 1891 Prof w w. Pendergast now
state superintendent of public instruction,
prepared a careful paper from the report
of State Auditor Braden for 1890. In that
report the professor shows that under the
single tax in this state almost every i'm
proved farm and town lot would be taxed
less than now, while the taxes would be
about once and half as much as now on
land held for speculation. l have verified
Prof. PendergaSt'S statistics and find them
correct. 1 have asked Mr.. Donnelly to veri-
fy on disprove them, but he has evidently
been too busy. I have twice placed Prof.
Pendergast's pamphlet in his hands and
asked him to read it, and 1 now enclose
another copy in this letter.
Mr.. Donnelly asks why should agrcui-
ture be made to bear all the burden. Bless
his soul can't he see that the most valu-
able land is in cities mines, quarries, for
ests, etc, and not used for agriculture,
and as the single tax is assessed according
to value, can't he see that agricultural
land would be assessed least. 1t is the
present system of taxation that has ruined
agriculturalists
rs it any wonder asks Mr. Donnelly,
that capitalists like John S. Pillsbury are
in favor of the single tax theory?" If Mr..
Pillsbury favors the single tax, he has
been converted very recently, for it was
only a short time ago that he was one of
our most uncomprOmising opponents. f9'
Mr.. Donnelly is also in error in supposing
that the higher taxes on bare land would
mean a higher price for land and higher
rents. Just the reverse is true and for a
very plain reason. The single tax would
result in higher taxes land held for
speculation lower taxes on users. Near
where 1 live there are four houses and lots
taxed about 1913 apiece. Four vacant lots
adjoining them are now taxed about $3S0
apiece. Under the single tax all eight
would be taxed about $3.50 or So apiece.
making it easy for users, harder for the
spectators. Result of single tax-specula-
tors anxious to SELL cheaper lots for users,
less taxes for home owners These
actual facts capable of verification, and
not theories to be argued about.
Let Us study the question honestly and
then abide by the result of candid nvesti-
cation. C. j. BUELL.