The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-11-08

Mr.. George himself, his tax would do moth
ing but create condition under which
wages would be regulated by, and could
not be below, what man could produce
by his own labor on land free of rent,
which, according to the theory, would be
the poorest land in use. Imagination may
consider this as something great and Won
derfui, but sober reflection cannot.
In Book VII. chapter 3. George makes
the attempt Ito try his remedy by the ac-
cepted canons of taxation" This is surely
the most peculiar part of his book; for L
am not aware that it is the object of any
tax to confscate the property to be taxed.
Such, however is the object of the single
tax How, then, can the propriety of a tax
so different in its desired effect be tried by
the accepted canons of ordinary taxation?
If the single tax can stand this test, If il is
similar in other respects to all other taxes
why should it not be similar in its effect?
MIR. George neither asks nor answers this
question, but ! am of opinion that
impartial study and investigation
leads to the conclusion that there
that the single tax would have a different
effect from every other exceedingly high
tax An exceedingly high tax has as
rule, the effect to give a monopoly in the
property to be taxed to those who are rich,
who can make the most profitable use of it,
and therefore are able to pay that tax. 1t
modest homes by workingmen If the land
tax is exceedingly high OF course, Mr..
George says the land would, by his tax, be
set free; it would cost nothing, or almost
nothing. But if this is So 1 should like to
know what, after the tax has had this
effect is to be taxed? For it seems to me
that if land has become common property
and has no commercial value, rent must
have disappeared, at least so far it finds
expression in or can be determined by the
money value of the land. 1t would be inter-
esting, indeed, to know how, for the pur
pose of taxation, the government is to de-
termine the quantity or value of the
product of the labor of a man on the poor
est land in use, and how every one who has
land of better quality in use would be COM
PEELED to give up the excess of his product,
because that excess is, under Ricardo's
ton with this the different uses to which
iand is put. the necessity to determine
what part of the income is due to the use
of land, and what part to the use of capital,
and you have confusion worse COMPOUNDED.
And as to the agricultural land? Let us
grant that the single tax will have the i'm
mediate effect claimed for it by George, and
condition then would be this: The State
would own all the land and lease it to the
citizens. The poorest land but still good
enough to yield to him who applies his Ia
Dor TO 1t a bare existence, can be had free
of rent, but for the better land the rent
would be equal to that which it would yield
above the yield of the poorest land. Now,
rent could not be shifted at all, then agri-
culture could never yield more than bare
existence
/ could go on criticising Georges theory,
but to analyze it fully would require the
writing of a book, and newspapers cannot
publish books. The world has never seen a
greater fallacy in the garb of wisdom and
PHILIP RAPPAPORT.
IndianaDolis Nov G