The age-herald., 1901-08-28
CATECHISM OF DOCTRINES
 UPHELD BY SINGLE TAKERS
BY e. J. FOYER, in the Chicago Reoord,4erad.

all generations. "The earth belongs ln usufruct to the living; the dead have no rights therein"
 Q. If taxes were levied on land values would not the land owner add the tax to the rent and thus shift it to the tenants A. Taxes on the product of labor are thus shifted because they limit produc- tion. That is, if consumers will not pay the added price production ceases until they will. But land is not a product of labor; its quality is fixed. Putting tax on it's value cannot therefore limit the supply; on the contrary, it would make holding land idle more expensive. This would tend to lower rent, not raise it. On whom would the tax of idle land be shifted?
 O. Is not rent added to the price of goods? A No. Rent is the price of ad- vantage of location. It costs less to pro- duce goods on land which yields rent than no-rent land. Land commands rent, not because those on it can get higher prices, but because they can do more business; that is, can produce more with less effort. Prices are no higher on account of rent. On the contrary, the best goods can be
  est rent land. Rent does not affect prices Price is determined at the margin of cul- tivation.
 All Taxed Alike.
 o. Would a poor widow owning a val uable unimproved lot adjoining an equally valuable but highly improved lot owned by millionaire be taxed as much as the millionaire? A. Yes. It should be noted that poor widows do not own valuable lots.
 O. If land were entirely free, are there not millions who would not tin the soil3 A. Yes; but there are other ways Of using land wit&out tilling it. No man can work in any way, or live even, without using land.
 0. Could not the rich continue to mo- nopolize the land under the single tax? A. No. Any attempt to do so would make the tax too heavy for the richest to pay, and they would, besides. have no motive to do so. Men monopolize more land now than they can use in order that they may appropriate the wealth produced by others.
 o. Is there not plenty of cheap land, es- pecia1ly In the United States? A. No; there is no place where land is cheap in the sense implied by the question. Land com nnands low price in many places. but 1t Is poor land. It Is not "cheap" land. Land is always dear in every place where it costs more than it is worth for immedi- ate use, and, owing to land speculation, this is the case wherever there is any considerable demand for land. Question of Improvement.
 Q. Where there Is pressure of popula- tion would not the landlord find 1t more profitable to improve his idle land than to hold 1t idle? A. Not always; owners of ten prefer to hold their land out of use where such land Is constantly increasing in value without any effort or risk on their part, and where the sale of parcel of land occasionally at an advance over what 1t cost enables them to pay the nom- inal tax and to acquire additional vacant land.
 Q. How will single tax effect the selling of land? A. It will destroy it. The selling price of land is the rent commuted. This the land owner now appropriates. When the entire rent is paid to the government there will be nothing left to be commuted.
 ''The truth which have tried to make clear wifi not find easy acceptance. If that could be 1t would have been accepted long ago. If that could be it would never have been obscured