The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1895-05-01
SINGLE TAX AGAIN.

SUITS IN DETAIL-HE SHOWS 1T
WOULD NOT ELIMINATE THE
LANDLORD. BUT THE LANDLORD
AND THE STATE WOULD UNITE TO
PREVENT THE COMMON PEOPLE
FROM POSSESSING HOMES.
To the Editor:
The claim that the single tax would
abolish land monopoly. cannot, in my opin-
Ion, be maintained. Land monopoly is the
power to dominate or control the use and
occupation of land that is not needed for
the personal use of it's owner, for the pur-
pose Of deriving profit from it by way of
rent or in speculation. man who builds
a house, not for his own use, but for rent
to another. is a landlord; and landlordism
Is the essence of land monopoly. The sin
gle tax theory does not propose to abolish
landiordism; therefore it will not abolish
land monopoly. 1t would permit the can-
troll or the use and occupation of land to
remain with the landlords for their profit.
The state would form sort of copartncr-
ship with them, 10 carry on and conduct
the business of landlordism and land mo-
nopoly at the OLD stand. Old customers re-
Fpectfully requested to continue their pat
ronage to the new firm; and the favors of
the public solicited. Prices reduced to cor
respond with the times. Each partner
would have hold on the land sufficiently
strong to serve his purpose. The state
would say to the landlord, in substance:
You can continue your business as usual,
but you must divide your profits with me-"
The state would designate its part of the
profits as ground rent" and the landlord
would facetiously term his portion rent
For improvements"
The single tax argument is mass of
postulates. One assumption is piled upon
mother and on this foundation the super
structure is reared with the same confident
assurance as If it were based upon demon
strated facts adduced from the wisdom and
experience of the ages. When the poop
scrat draws upon his imagination for facts
Instead of presenting proofs, the opponent
Is, at times, drawn to the same form of
reply.
The landlords of the United States have
never had occasion to enter the political
hs.the single tax would be the bugle-
gall that would bring them together
l. s'Ground rent" having become a political
question the landlords would be forced into
politics to defend their holdings against
high valuations. The great monied and
corporate interests being interviewer, each
with the others, would naturally and al
most inevitably be closely allied with the
landlords; and they would become a power
IN politics greater than the railroads are
now. In all matters pertaining to the as
easement of valuations and the rate of
taxation the landlords would control the
situation and dictate terms. Valuations
would be made comparatively low in the
cities, on the most valuable lots, and high
among the farms and homes of the people,
who would be compelled to sustain the
great burden of the tax as they do now
and the wealthy landlords would fix their
own valuations as they do under the pres
ent system.
The city landlords would charge what
rent they pleased-all they could get-for
their Improvements" The state having
collected the ground rent tax, would have
no further power to NEEDLE with the bust
ness of the landlords; and any attempt to
do so would be resented as an unwar-
ranted interference with private affairs.
improvements would command high rents
their value considered: and rack-renting
would be elevated to the dignity of an ex-
act science.
There would be no greater competition
between the landlords under the single tax
regime than there is between the railroads
now; on the contrary there would be a
close combination for offensive and de-
1ensive purposes, and for active participa-
ton in politics.
Land valuations would not be increased
In consequence of any high rents charged
Tor improvements" on the better class OF
city locations nor on the holdings ct the
great corporations Just about the time
the state officials would have concluded tc
raise any such valuation, the landlords
would demand a reduction-and get it. The
landlords and corporate landholders would
be in politics about this time. The owner.
Of rented improvements would be the rea
landlords, Notwithstanding the state
owned the land, and their demands would
be the will of the state. Whatever relie
would be desirable from vacant lots in de
sirable localities, would inure to the land
lord and the wealthy and well-to-do class
who could pay the ground rent tax ant
build upon them. vacant lot, withou
title or money value, subject to higl
ground-rent-tax, would be of more
practical use to the great mass of tenants
who can hardly pay moderate or even
low rent for shelter-than would be d stow
without fuel They would continue to pa!
rent to the old landlord
According to the single tax theory, as i
is preached, an immense revenue would b.
collected as ground-rent, so much, indeed
that there is argument as to what us
could be made of the surplus left in tn
treasury, after paying all the expenses O
the national state, county, municipal an,
town governments And yet no one excep
the wealthy landowner is to be taxed, ex
cept in the most nominal sort of way TIL
city lot held by an Aston is to be value,
At the top figures: but the adjoining 10
used and occupied as home by it's owner
would have a low valuation and be lightl
taxed. A farm owned by Scully woul
be made to yield all the traffic would bear
but the adjoining farm, used and occupie
as home by its owner, would not be take
at all. This is fair Illustration of tn
single tax argument; and the most strenu
GUS opponent of the graduated tax an
home exemption is found in the single ia
advocate.
Any expectation that the wealthy owner
Of improvements on the choice location
in and about the great cities will pay tn
immense revenues created by the imigins
ton of the single tax theorist, will Gel
tainly result in disappointment, unless HI
Inxran nature changes and~the power {
seS yr,afE tha
||||||||l