The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1898-10-16

stSsIL I'M AND I-HE spoR.
Arguments against the single tax
have been chiefly directed at the man
who owns land, bu: Il will be- as well
for the poorer man 10 comprehend this
effect {. would have upon him.
Should single tax prevail. as il Nigh,
do under the adoption Of the proposed
constitutional amendment, the effect
would he TO abolish al taxes upon per
soual property. and ultimately on i'm
provemenis. II will suffice Cor the i'm
mediate purpose 20 consider the effect Of
aboIshing the tax or personal property
II the owner Of stocks and bonds and
diamonds and luxuries. including
houses filed with fine furniture.
be exempted. the tax must neces-
sarily be increased upon land. I'M
medsately the land owner would raise
the ren. to the extent OF the difference
OF the tax put upon him. The unfor-
tunate tenant would have 10 pay that
tax What benefit would IL be TO him to
be relieved Of tax on his little belong
ings. which IL comparatively in3igniti-
cant. II he had 10 make up the differ
ence in the payment OF rent?
There are many people who own a
very small piece OF land who are
wealthy in personal property. They
would only pay about the same tax as
the man who lived In an average sized
house. bat the man In the average sized
which tens OF thousands OF dollars
worth of Jewelry and stocks and bonds
escaped Instead of buying land man
with money would invest in stocks and
bonds which were free from taxation,
but no man can escape living in house,
and whether he were the land owner
himself or the tenant he would have TO
make good the deficiency.
II may be admitted that the increased
tax thereby following on unimproved
land would be an inducement for own
ers 10 put up buildings. if they had the
increase In rent But suppose the owner
had not sufficient money to put up a
building. the effect would be the same
as in the case of insurance. Almost
everybody admits that the old line
method OF insurance is the best, but it
is too expensive Men. therefore. pay
proportionateIy "a higher rate of insur-
ance, considering the security, because
1t is easier to pay in small installments
To d great extent this would be true OF
the tax Men who own a small property
would submit to the hardship because
they might be able to squeeze out the
additional annual tax when II would be
impossible for them To build
We know this is not in accordance
with the theory Of the single takers. but
nobody can dispute that this would be
the practical result for some years. The
merit of the single tax. as claimed by
its advocates, Is in It's perfect equaiity.
but 1t will not be claimed by them that
it would result other than disadvan-
tageously If It were only partially ap-
Piled In order that the single tax
method may bring the advantages
claimed for it. the tax on land must be
equal 10 it's value. which means a CON-
uscatjon or ownership.
If man Is willing to admit that as
the right principle. then lie viii be in
favor Of single tax: but any half meas
are would only result in the rankest in
Justice. which would fall most heavily
upon the man whose ambition ii was 10
OWN his home in preference 10 boarding
up his savings in personal property.
which OF course includes stocks and
bonds and all thc other articles Of lux
ury.