The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-11-01
THE SINGLE TAX.
Mr. Whites Reasons for Supporting
the Henry George Theory.
To the Editor of the indianapolis Journal:

To the Editor of the Indianapolis Journal:
My attention has been called to an ed-
torial article in a recent issue of the Jour
nal relative to the Henry George single
tax theory, in which so much Of misappre-
hension of this doctrine appears that l am
led to believe the writer has given the sub
ject little or no investigation. The article
in question states that it has developed in
the New York campaign that the small
home owners in the suburbs of that city are
arrayed against the single tax as being
detrimental to their interests, and that
tenement dwellers reject it for the reason
that if all the tax was placed on land their
rent would be raised Whatever of truth
there may be in this statement, and the
dispatches from New York hardly sub
stantiate it, is probably due to a prejudice
growing out of a lack of knowledge Of this
system Of taxation The rent of tenements,
and all other houses as well, is governed by
the law of supply and demand, independent
of the rate of taxation and il taxes were
doubled, rents would not go up. Only in so
far as taxes go up Improvements would be
discouraged, and it less houses were built
competition between renters would become
stronger and thus raise rents. But it is the
contention of single-taXers that by relieving
improvements from tax burdens building
would be stimulated, and this would tend to
reduce rents.
The Journal springs rather familiar il
lustration to single-taxers when 1t says
that under the single tax a lot bearing
thousanu-dollar cottage would be taxed the
same as one by its SIue with a twenty-five
thousand-dollar mansion. While as a propo-
Sition this Is true, as a practical lilusJra-
ton 1t is mere ,abSurdlty-a creature of
No INN iTll 7 Snn rrl.t
exist in indianapolis, but have never seen
1t, and don't think the most dlllgent search
would reveal one. Thousand-dolIar cottages
and rWenty-flve-t hOuSand-doliar mansions
don't grow next door to one another.
The underlying principle of the single tax
is that the earth-the raw materials of
nature-iS an inheritance from the Creator
to all men throughout all generations, and
is not to be absorbed through a system of
private ownership by a special class of hui
man beings. Slngle-taXerS adhere to the
SacredneSs of property rights, but their phi
losophy does not embrace land in the cate
CORY of property. TO them only the product
of labor is property, and land is not a
product of human hands or ingenuity, but
is the source from which all wealth must
come; it is both the base of operations and
the reservoir OF materials. 1t is the prOpo-
Sition of the single tax that ali men have
an equal right to land and ii is for the pur-
pose of securing this equality that the sin
it is not tax on land, as stated in the
Journal, but a tax on land values, an i'm
portant distinction, as land of no value
would not be taxed Land has no value
until two persons want the same site, and
out of this grows the general proposition
that land values are the product of popula-
ton and general Improvement and are
therefore, in justice the property OF the
community in common, just as improve
nients and other personal effects are in JUS
tice the undisputed property of the indi-
vidual. Under our present system land
owners reap the great bulk of land values,
while the people in common must submit
tn DlOmerate system taxation.
the interference of industry, to support
government This is in violation of property
rights, allowing individuals to absorb pub
lie property Gland values) and then taking
private property for public use. The single
tax theory does not contemplate that the
government shall buy the land nor that
those in possession shall become tenants
at will. Here is what Henry George said on
this point:
possession of Individuals with full liberty
on their part to give. sell or bequeath it.,
simply to levy on it for public uses a tax
that shall equal the annual value of the
land itself, irrespective of the use made of
it or the Improvements on 1T. And since this
would provide amply for the need of public
revenues, we would accompany this tax on
land values with the repeal of all taxes now
levied on the products and processes Of in
duStry, which taxes. since they take from
the earnings of labor, we hold to be in
Engagements of the right Of property"
Land stripped of improvements, as ap-
pIied to farms for instance, would mean
Without buildings fences drains or any of
the necessary conveniences of farm life;
the tax would simply take the annual rental
value of bare land. Under this system farm
values would be exceedingly low as COM
pared with town and city lands, and farm
ers would be great gamers by its adoption.
In conclusion. I would say that the per-
sons "who committed the Indiana labor con-
vention" to this theory of taxation are full
ly aware of it's character, and adhere to It,,
notwithstanding some of them have prop
erty in land" and are home owners. Wage
earners who buy homes under the present
system know something of the hardships
and pinching privations that it entails. The
difficulty in getting a home is not in the
building a house, but in securing place to
put it. When the latter is once paid for
the rest is comparatively easy. The single
tax would make building sites cheap and
home building easy. JOHN +. WHITE.
Indianapolis Oct 3d.