The independent. [volume] (Lincoln, Neb.) 1902-1907, 1905-03-09

Olduudiu Oll COuupduy duuudi luCuiut
sum about SAL 100000 is ground rent
(Which belongs to the public while
about $3,000,000 is interest on actual
capital Qabor products used in the fur
Their production of wealthy. Under the
single tax program, the Standard Oil
company would relinquish all its nat
ural resources, now monopolized, which
it could not Immediately use. With
all of its privileges-in transportation,
etc., withdrawn, competition would
force its dividends down to 100000,
at most. OF the remaining Sal, 100000,
/ the major part would be retained by
the public, through the reduction of
price of the company's products, while
| the minor part (the annual rental
value of the natural resources still in
the exclusive possession of the COM
pany) would go to government in
taxes. The people would receive it in
public benefits.
At present not less than three billion
dollars annually of tribute, due to
privilege, is paid by the American peo-
pie to plutocracy. Under Henry
Georges plan that part of the tribute
which is due to tariff and other forms
OF unjust taxation, highway monopoly,
ETC., would be retained by the people,
while that part. which is due to the mo-
nopoliZatiOn of natural resources would
go to government-nationa state and
local, in place of taxes. The latter
fund would probably reach the sum of
81, 100000 900, and would be ample for
q with 1ipu
the individual for a dollar which is
rightfully his.
You say that the i,70S, 100000 acres
of unused land would yield very lit
tie tax. You assume that this land is
the least valuable, that the 400, 100000
acres of used land is the most valuable
This is not the case. Fifty-one pei
cent of the land in New York city is
not built upon. In other cities the pro
portion is greater. The single tax
would force the 400,000,000 most pro-
ductive acres into use. AS you say, |
If population moved from the land of |
less value to the land of greater value, |
the tax would follow. But you neg
lect to point out that the 1,70S,000,000 |
acres of least productive land would |
be absolutely free to labor until there I
arose competitive demand for it, that I
more than 200000,000 acres Of this land
now commands rent, that, wages for
common labor being limited to what
it can produce on the least productive
land in use, the return to labor would
be multiplied.
You are mistaken in the SUPPOSE
ton that the high tax on the locations
of manufacturer, the jobber and the re-
taller would be added to the cost of
the goods. This is true of all taxes
but the land value tax. II it were
true, the manufacturer at Jimtown
could undersell his competitor in New
York, while the merchant of the latter
place would buy his supplies from the
instead of the reverse.
Marshall Fields stores are built on
and which probably pays more taxes
than all the land in your county, yet I :
1are say he sells goods in your county,
n competition with your home mer-
liant, while he could not afford to
,uy anything that is produced in your
county
The single tax (ground rent) is sim @
lily the premium which men are will
ng to pay for the exclusive possession {
# superior locations. To illustrate:
(, with given amount of labor, one
an produce, on three pieces of land,
0, Ii and IL, he will pay 1 for the
rivilege of using the land that will
ield IL, and 2 for that which yields
2, as readily as he will accept that
'hich yields but 10, free. In the case
the high-priced business locations,
ne superior facilities for exchange and
le army Of customers make BUSINESS
ighly profitable notwithstanding the
reat premium paid for the location
nd the low rate of profit.
After the act of 1896, practically re-
ealing the tariff tax in the Australian .
,1ony of New South Wales, one retail
ore in Sydney took in 100000 in
rec days, preceding Christmas Sup
,se this firm carried a 100000
ock, in 100000 house, on $1,000 900 }
t. and made a margin of 10 per cent al
oft on it's sales. 1t could pay the :.