Middletown transcript., 1895-08-24
SINGLE TAX AGAIN.


least they fail to satisfactorily answer
the questions asked but answer in an
evasive manner. We would like very
much to have some one come here who
can tell us what Single Tax is and some
thing of its merits. ."-St. Georges cor
respondent of Ne,o Era.
Why not read the TRANSCRIPT? It
will give you all the information de-
sired, and you can read it at your con-
venience. It should be much more
agreeable than to stand upon the street
| corner to listen to the speakers, it mat
ters not how entertaining they may be.
And then the TRANSCRIPT gives both
sides! That is fair and it is impartial.
The Intelligent reader wants to hear
both sides and then to make up his
mind for himself. Read the TRAN
SCRIPT, and you will know.
We have again this week two COM
munications On the subject, one for
and the other against. The one favor
ing Single Tax contains more argu-
ment than all those that have pre-
ceded it, but its economical aspect"
proposition is to take away from the
holders thereof all property in land, at
least all value. Single Tax denies the
right to land ownership, or the pro-
ceeds from the land which it would
take in the way of taxes, while it leaves
to the bond holder his stocks and mort
cages, and the interest therefrom.
Have the holders of bonds and mort
cages, of factories and machinery, Of
houses and horses, produced" those
values, which were bequeathed them
in most instances, more than the man
whose property is in the land which
the Single Tax proposes to confscate?
And again how small proportion Of
the land is situated in and around
the cities with its greater values be-
cause of that locationl The argument
holds good in kind that the city land
would pay heavier tax but not in degree.
There are millions of acres Of farm
land to the few thousands of acres in
city lots. In this respect the "econom-
ic aspect" fails.
"Will be relieved of all other taxi"
What is that tax in the State of Della
ware? How much must be raised
from the land? "Land on the whole
now rents for what it is worth" and it
will take that to pay the tax, leaving
the owner of the land nothing for his
property. Mr.. Vallandigham, who is
we'll known as formerly citizen of
this community and editor Of Every
Evening, says to tax the land will not
"increase the demand for land" We
thought it was the theory Of Single
Tax that it would; that the poor, whom
Christ said ye have always with you,
would seek this land to cultivate it
and thus poverty shall be no more. We
find it is all theory and not at all con-
sistent at that.
That the TRANSCRIPT is right in its
position that the Single Tax argument
should be met, is proven by Mr.. Val
landigham's letter. He is cultured
gentleman, known personally to our
readers and that he accepts the doc
trine is proof that the scheme is not all
visionary. 1t appeals to the selfishness
of men, to ''ninety-nine one hundredths
Of all men that earn their bread by
labor of any Sort" says Mr.. ",
though he offers no proof of his declar-
alton. "You shall escape taxation,"
is the cry, and yet some one must pay
taxes. Does the one man in the hun
dred own the land, and shall he pay
tax and the ''ninety nine" escape? We
know the proposition is ridiculous, but
1t appears to be the logical conclusion.
The man who owns house and lot is
asked to accept Single Tax that his
house may escape taxation. That is
desirable to him. He likes it, but the
honest advocate of Single Tax says
"we shall put the tax paid for the
house on your land" Oh! Then
where is the benefitp There is none,
only the Single Tax has prevailed,
values have been disturbed, business
chaos reigns, and the Single Taxer is
happy since he ideals with principles
and has nothing to do with results"
By request, Justice was put upon our
exchange list and we are sorry to have
missed the last issue. We were antici-
pating some arguments. In their alb
sence let us quote from Progress and
Poverty:
"When it is proposed to abolish pri-
vate property in land the first question
that will arise is that of justice. =
If private property in land be just,
| then is the remedy l propose false
one; if on the contrary, private prop
erty in land be unjust, then is this
| remedy the true one.' "We
have seen that privato propertyin land
loo w Wdll lduO III JuotlSOs WO
have weighed every objection, and seen
that neither on the ground Of equity
or expediency is there anything to
deter US from making land common
property by confiscating rent.
| But question of method remains.
We should meet all economic require
ments, by at one stroke abolishing all
private titles, declaring all land public
property, and letting it out to the
| highest bidders in lots to suit, under
such conditions as would sacredly
guard the private right to improve
ments. 1 do not propose
either to purchase or confscate private
property in land. The first would be
unjust; the second needless. 1t
is not necessary to confiscate land; it is
only necessary to confsca'e rent. n
We already take some rent in taxation.
We have only to make some changes
in our mode Of taxation to take it ALL"
This is Henry Georges theory.
Il