Smyrna times., 1896-05-13
MORE SINGLE TAX TALK.
REPLY TO "SON OF DELAWARE.

the Single Tax have done everything ,
in their power to prevent the people 1
from hearing it discussed, but have
failed. 1t is not true that
Single takers ignore all other social
questions. They hold that the land
question is more important than all
others combined. If "SOn of Della
ware" really believes that Single Takers
have ''fever" and are therefore un-
able to reason closely, the field is open
to him at any time and place to engage
in debate either public or private with
any Single Tax speaker or with my
self if he so wishes.
There is no tangle in the Single Tax
doctrine. Here it is. Land is the
gift of the Creator to all his children,
therefore all have an equal right to it,
notwithstanding all man made laws and |
customs to the contrary. Since all |
have an equal right to land it follows |
that all have an equal right to the |
value of land. The value of land is
measured in rent, therefore all have an
equal right to the rent of land. The
rent of land should therefore be put in
to the common treasury to be ex-
pended for the common good. In this
way equal rights to land can be estab-
lished and maintained. Taking the
rent of land in taxation for public pur-
poses is what is called the Single Tax.
Equal freedom to the use of land would
be established by Single Tax as it
would call upon individuals who hold
private possession of land to pay just
| what the possession was worth, namely,
the rent, so that the equal claims of all
other men would thus be satisfied.
1t is clear that ''SOn of Delaware, " has
never studied political economy. Let
me now state some facts that will give
him food for thought. A tax up on the
value of land makes land cheaper but
tax on goods makes goods dearer.
Such tax upon the value of land as
would absorb all the rent would en-
tirely destroy the selling price, as the
selling price is merely rent capitalized
at the current rate of interest. Take
for example piece of land in Smyrna
is worth say $1,000, now taxed $40 a
year, would it not lower the selling
price, if the tax was raised to $40. OF
course it would almost destroy the sell
ing price. The owner of such a lot
would soon find it very improbable to
hold it idle, so he would either put it
to use or sell it to some one who did
want to use it. The fact that the land
is worth $40 year rent is sufficient
proof that there is demand to use,,that
land. Putting that land to use would
employ labor and capital and right
there is where the laboring man and
the capitalist cOmein. ItwOuld enOrm-
Ously benefit both as all other land
would be treated in the same way.
Immense areas of land particularly in
the West are held idle for speculation.
The Single Tax would make such
speculation improbable, the specula-
tor would depart, the land would be
, thrown open for settlement and mil
| lions of our people would find homes,
as they used to before this continent
! was monOpOliZed.
! Your correspondent asks. "What
L difference does it make to the farmer
I whether he pays half the crops to q
man dressed in blue suit represent
ing the government, or to the land
> lOrd?" 1t is difficult for me to believe
that Son of Delaware asks the question
seriously. If it would make no differ
ence, then it would make no difference
if the taxes we now pay went to thu
landlords. Suppose that some on'
y should propose that the taxes the peO
pie now pay should be handed over Il
, private individuals for their own pri
vate use, would not Son of Delaware
2 be filled with righteous indignation
u would he not denouce such a PROPOSE
!. ton as bare faced robbery? Th
II politicians corrupt as they are give u
, something in return for what they ge
!, schools, roads, police and fire prOtec
u lection are some of the useful thing
u government gives us. But what doe
the landlord as a landlord give us
u The land? Never. That was prOviee'
!, by the Creator and presented as fre
II gift to all his children.
81 1t is not true that improvement
D create land values. Deserted town
, in many parts of the West with i'm
l. provements all standing but the pOpu
latiOn gone have no land value.
"a the people should leave Smyrna to
e, morrow, the value of the lots woul
III leave too, even though all the building
y. were left behind The whole peopl
II create the value of the lots, there
le fore the value should go to the Who'll
a people.
ln The rental value of public franchise
- would be taken in taxation if th
" Single Tax was in operation, so tn
" Manhattan Elevated Railroad Co. woul
ss pay an enormous tax. That cOmpan
" has the exclusive privilege of usin
VI for elevated railroad purposes certai
streets in New York. As the street
10 are land, the company would b
r called upon to pay rental value of sue
oI use of the streets.
~ George Gould is not out for th
Single Tax. His vision of single ta
~ is probably great deal clearer than
s' that of "Son of Delaware, and b
u knows that single tax would make hll
pay great deal more tax than he doe
now. He can hide his personal prol
erty but he cannot hide his land, an
the greater part of the value of hi
i, railroads is land value. / did not sa
~ in previous article or anywhere els
VI that there is no land monopoly.
% hold that there is, and that the Ian
OF monopoly is the foundation stone of a
We other monopolies. The owners I
a. coal, iron and oil lands can monOl
olize and put up the price OF tho'
IN M commodities by restricting the outpu
ai1 The flour and beef monopolists share
w .lu the railroad monopoly by way OF r
eT bates so as to enable them to crush OF
competitors. The railroads are m
eu nopolies because no one but certal
en- specified individuals or companies ca
nu operate trains over those strips of Ian
"e used for railroad purposes and for Il
use of which public permission
needed.
ale ''Son of Delaware thinks that 1
he one except those who have a sing
he tax conscience" (Which he thinks
IN. very elastic) can believe that any ms
di- ever made million dollars honestl
aee / have ''single tax conscience" an
Dre / believe that quite number of me
ers have made million dollars honestl
of In former article your corresponds
res stated that Mr.. Shearman said, tn
M speculation and monopoly in 9th
ore things than land was good; now
md changes it so as to read that M
ich Shearman said that speculation
ore things other than land was beneficis
OF He leaves out the word monopoly.
he will look into Webster's dictiona
he will find considerable difference
ood the meaning of the two words. VIII
ood "Son Of Delaware" goes into an arg
lge. ment of this kind he ought at least
Gus be careful about the statements he {
ION. tributes to other people.
LEONARD TUTTLE.
Smyrna, May 8, 1896.
the -
has The revenues which Cuba has a