The morning times., 1896-05-10
F or and Against Single I ak.
The writer of the slngle-tax column ha.

The writer of the single-tax column has
been and is still seriously sick and unable
to furnish the regular contribution. As
tue author OF the article referred to by
"H'' in his criticism which appeared last
Sunday, he Will probably in due time reply
to ''H'' in full, and therefore an answer i'll
detail will not be attempted now.
1t may be said, however, that some of
III. s. arguments so clearly expose the
weakness or the position he assumes to
defend that he Will in time surely con
vince himself of the error of his ways.
For instance, H. says: "a tract of
land which one man gave up as valueless
TO him would be equally valueless TO
every other man in the community re-
ferrlng to :" unused tracts of land which
The dog in-the manager owners did not want
TO use, and which, at the prices asked for
them by such owners, nobody else could
and wanted to use. Now, H thinks il
the owners should abandon such lands
because under full value tax it was no
longer profitable TO hold them idle for
future rise in price, that, therefore, it
would be unprofitable to use them. Could
fallacy be more glaring?
But, worse than all, H says: The ac-
tual fact is that soon they were thus
taxed excessively ana iuequitably-that is,
| at present selling or asking value, we pre-
they would Immediately become
valuelesS'' tfOr purposes OF SpeCulationl.
Then he goes on: But if the owners We're
forced to relinquish them because the
tax was too high no other person could
afford to use them because, under
| the communist system, the rent charged for
their use would be equally high" Who
ever heard OF a single-taxer proposing to
tax valueless land? HI seems TO have tie
idea that the proposition is To tax value
less land instead OF taxing land values.
Then, again, he admits: "Of course, tha {
particular man 'having an average house
| on an average lot would gain by the single
| tax. AS an offset, others must
| lose" These others are the few who get
something for nothing, at present, and make
| the many lose everything that makes life
| worth living. The single tax means equity
| and equal Justice to all To the individual
what he produces; to the public what the
| community produces. BY the single tax
| the right to individual property is clearly
defined; individual property and public in
come are sharply separated. And this
| brings US to Socialist whose remarks
| appeared in The Times of April l6.
Socialist thinks the single tax can he
Shifted which HI" evidently disputes
| because he thinks il will hit the landlord
| and land speculator at whom II Is aimed.
! Socialist is smart, no doubt, very smart
| ct ne pats H. on Jllt DdCk, DIS IL 81 IL-
You and / agree exactly" And in spite
| of his smartness his language indicates that
he does not compre heud what shifting
| tax means nor which taxes can be shifted,
| and which cannOt. Tie manufacturers
| lobbying for higher tariff aud revenue
| taxes know that they simply advance the
! tax and shift il with bigger profit on
| the consumer. Who ever heard any land
| lord or land speculatcr lobby for higher
1 TFl nt mo-. Ia
| are not smart; they know that their tax
| could not be shifted, and oppose any IN
crease OF it.
| But Socialist says that all taxes must De
paid by products OF Labor, seeming to think
| that he is proClaiming new revelation
| In stating a simple fact which no economist
| has ever failed TO see or state. lf'Sociallst'
| could for while look straight at straight
facts aud their logic, he might compre-
hend that a direct tax is one which the
person taxed must pay from his own re-
| sources and not from those of some other
| person. Moreover. he might learn that a
direct tax does not affect the price or
| goods. An indirect tax has precisely the
opposite qualities: the man who pays tad
| vancesi it. reCOvers the amount IN the IN
creased price of goods which II causes
! These propositions have been proven by
experience time and again. The whisky
y.
etc, are easy samples. The payment OF a
private debt comes out Of the products
OF labor but 1t does not follow from TINS
that the man whs pays an honest debt can
increase the price of the goods he sells by
the amount of such payment.
If farmer should wake up some flne
morning to find all sorts or clothing growing
on his apple trees, and food ready ior tht
table coming down from the clouds. Whit
all other farms were not similarly Favored
that farm would suddenly become verl
valuable, if that farmer were permitted
to exclude others from this natural bounty
The value of the privilege Of excluding
others. year after year. would be the ren
of that farm.
Now. if the single-taXer should come
along and convince the people OF the whol'
State that they had as much night TO TIM
supernatural bounty as that particular
farmer. and they should agree TO tak'
that bounty fer the common ana equa
hesefit of ALL including that farmer hlm
self. we should have our apphcauOt
of the single tax. But. if the farmer solt
these supernatural goods to consumer
and turned the proceeds over to the puhh
treasury andthe people wereexemptedfroii
| other taxes to such an amount tire SHlaf
socialist would still get up In ''meeun'
to INQUIRE if labor did not pay that tax
| o s--