The morning times., 1896-05-03
Oinqle77ax n0lUmn
.O4zzzz | zO4zzzz
The Times undertakes no responsi-
b!lity for views expressed In this
column.
CHEAPER HOMES.

reducing the tax on buildings, would
tighten the tax on homes Even that per
verse individual who accepts and enjoys
the hospitality of single-taX and other
reform clubs only to denounce their objects,
and who endeavors 70 veil his identity
behind the initial H., regardless OF
the obvious fact that among 300, 900
people there can only be one SO perverse
as he, admits this fact. He adds, how
ever, that" an offset some Others must
lose" SIC
Precisely-the land spectators. They
have grown rich through tax exemption,
while owners of improvements have paid
their just share OF the tax and mosC OF
the land SPECTATORS just share besides.
Why protest against justice because it
would take from the rich land specu-
lator what injustice has given him? Though
posing as the friend of the poor. is he who
thus protests their real friend? If SO,
why object TO having their taxes reduced
for fear Of increasing the rich land specu-
lator's tax?
AS warning against the single tax, he
declares that spectators might refuse to
pay the increased tax and forfeit their
titles to the lots, so they would be open
for anyone willing TO pay the tax on them
to take up and use them.
As landlords evidently receive from ten
ants both the tax money they pay to govern
ment and the profits they put down in their
own pockets. he thinks no person would be
willing to use this land for which he would
not need 10 pay landlords profit above
the taxes. and then-O, dire calamity-no
one would use or pay taxes on this land.
No one. knowing the taxes would not be
increased. however much he improved Ii,
would use any OF this vacant land. This
would. indeed, be a sad state of affairs.
Men would not want land, because 1t was
taxed. nor houses thereon, because they were
not taxed. Out of, the kindness of his sym
pathetic heart, H might take them into
N0ah's ark, or up In ballooon-along
with his arguments.
FREE LAND.
He declares that LAND which one man
gave up as valueless to him would be equally
valueesS to every other man. whereas
every buyer OF land sees more value in it
than the seller, else there would be no sales
And land which was yalueless for the pur-
pose Of holding vacant might be quite yalu-
able for cropping or building purposes.
Furthermore, land which one wanted
would have no entail value, and therefore
, would be entirely untaXed as the single tax
is levied Oh rental value only. With free
land, there ought be no able-bodied paupers.
The fact that Improvements We're exempt
from taxation would not lessen the deSlTa-
biity of being near the center of population.
The competition for these more desira tile
locations would keep up the ground rents
and furnish ample government revenue.
For, though useless to hold lille and speCu-
late in, land would still be as useful and
valuable as ever to live on and use.
And, when people could have il by merely
pa wing the tax on il, they could use 1t
TO better advantage than when they must
pay both tax and profit ON speculative
Values as H" virtually admits they
1 -
country need to carry on their backs only
government alone, they can certainly pro
gress more rapidly than when carrying
both the government and the specializing
landlords. Tax supports the government,
and speculative rent supports the id!e
landlord. The user OF land can certainly
pay one easier than both Economic rent
is lower than speculative rent"
MORE EMPLOYMENT.
Untaxing houses, furniture and all tie
necesSaries OF life would certainly make
them cheaper TO The purchaser thereof,
by the difference OF the redUced or RENTED
I-taX. This would enable more persons
ltto sbuy these ueccsSIries. and Greale jnoEe
de niahd FOR thcnI, witch ,7in turn, would
Increase the demand for laboreTs to p! oGuce
them Thus producers wsutt enjoy the
twof0ld advantage Of mere employment
and cheaper necessariek or life.
The increased savings they could there
by accumulate would enable them sooner
TO buy and own Il hope at its real value,
from which II. him self admits the in
ceTaSed cost or Il speculative value" had
been squeezed by the Siugte tax, Does II.
object to the laborers- owning their own
homes? If so, why? Does he want the cost
OF goods inflated by tax levies, instead of
the whole price paid for them going To
the lahorers WHO produced, for warded and
delivered them to him? II so, then the
mask is torn off AMI he can no longer pose
as the friend of the laborer-the producer
OF all wealth.
WOULD BENEFIT REAL FARMERS
4 farmer is one who really fariTs. A
land speculator, who holds his laua va
cant or partially vacant through pretense
of farming il with Il tenants muscle and
sweat, when it is really more valuable for
building than for farming purposes, for its
speculative value to increase, often
farms the farmer This SpeCu!atOr who
farms the farmer would not benefit by
the single tax. The real farmer would beu-
eft, as would all producers, at the eX-
penSe OF SPECTATORS.
As the single tax S tax. not on land,
but on land values, real farm land, which
has but little value when buildings, fences,
orchards, and fertility produced by fer
tiiiZers are exempt, would he ightl yta&ed -
much more lightly than at present., and real
farmers would benefit thereby as would
all the other real producers.
Land spectators would Of coarse suffer
|. some what. Is 1t his sympathy with the
latter as against the former that inspires
his criticism?
SINGLE TAX Is THOROUGHLY IN
DIVIDUALISTIC.
The single tax is the strictest kind of
individualism. So strictly does it main
tain the individuals right to his own
product that, not only would 1T prevent
any other individual from ftrcblybaking it
from him, but it would prevent likewise
that association of individuals called the
| State or government from apprOprating
| it or any part the ereok-as such appropriation
| is clearly communlStic.
To prevent this appropriation of indi-
| vidual labor products, which belong most
! rightfully to the individual, single-taxers
oppose taxation of those products, which
| is only another name for public or COM
munstic appropriation OF a share of them.
| III lieu of this taxation, 1t is proposed to
| let the government take under the forms of
| ia XatiOn that value which she herself
| createS-grOund rents. In these locations
| where government gives better schools,
| streets, police, and fire protection, mail
delivery etc. ground rents are thereby
| i nm ediately increased. This entire in
| crease Of ground rent therefore belongs to
the government that made it, just as
| the product an individual makes belongs
| to him. When government takes, through
| so-called taxation the values it thus
creates, it taxes no one any more than
all individual taxes his fellows by con-
| suming his own product.
| The single tax simply discriminates ac-
| Gu rately between what the Individual
and what the state creates, and demands
| that each shall have ell nc creates and no
| more than that, as, to get more, one must
| rob the other.
Like the abolition of chattel slavery if