The independent. [volume] (Lincoln, Neb.) 1902-1907, 1905-04-13


Editor Independent: Your issue OF
March 80, in which appears letter
from Mr.. A. Freeland of Mt. Pleasant,
Tenn, to my self, will say to Mr.. Free
land that IL / were merchant and
was selling protection chat is what
we buy from the goyernment) that
would most certainly charge the man
that wanted protection for two mil
lion dollars worth of valuables high
er rate than ] would the man that
wanted protection for only two thou
sand dollars worth of valuables, be-
cause the former would be receiving a
far greater amount of favor to get
himself" (his valuable protected, al
though he might be physically much
smaller man than the latter, because
he has already got an advantage over
the latter and should be charged in
proportion according to his ability to
pay, more than the latter, because the
government or protection is great
er favor to him than the latter. 1t
wouldn't matter snap with me il
his wealth was all represented in inn
provements (Which you say should not
be taxed) and the latter's all in land
az he owned greater ra<e of per-
centage of the wealth he would have
to pay greater rate Of percentage for
the protection of same.
You say also Single tax catachism"
says that person should not pay any
tax whatsoever on improvements. You
say that IL a man buys lot of land
for $500 and puts $4,000 or $5,000,000
worth of improvements on same that
he should never be taxed on any part
of his property except first cost of his
land, valued at $500 in it's unimprOved
condition, yet you say that railroads
and other public highways should be
taxed on the full value Of their land
these highways you are consid-
ering them at the present supposed
value in the improved state too, for
you don't say they should be taxed
only on the original cost of their high
way lands in it's unimproved condition,
or that they should be taxed only on
value equivalent to the present value
Of similar unimproved strips running
parallel with them in same sections
Of country Cat a sufficient distance for
the Improvement of one not to en-
nance the crude value the other). You
seem to want those improvements
taxed, but you don't want it called i'm
provements, you want 1t called grown
in value" such an idea! For instance,
suppose that the original old Astor
had bought all the land now occupied
by Greater New York, for say, $1,000
600 and cleared it all as farmer does
land that he intends to grow grain on.
II would then already have been i'm
proved and been more valuable be-
cause the improvements made it more
valuable. Suppose he had kept con-
centrating Improvements on, under
and above the area of that entire lot
until he had put $1,000,0OO worth Of
Improvements on every second acre
of that entire lot Tin stripe or squares)
the entire area of the entire lot would
then be improved at the rate of half
million dollars per acre (althOugh but
half the surface would be absolutely
covered with improvements, in the
sense you. at times, want to apply
improvements" the entire surface
area would he improved and all the
value above the original cost would be
directly caused by improvements or
would therefore be within itself i'm
provements, nothing else. At one stage
of the game you tell us that the Astors
(all purchasers should never be taxed
only on the original cost of the crude
land, although the concentrated i'm
provements has caused concentrated
population, everybody being willing to
Day high rates for the privilege of
living in such well improved parts
OF our country, while not one acre of