Rock Island Argus. (Rock Island, Ill.) 1893-1920, 1907-11-15

| Again, Mr. OSBORN says, the dSSe:-
ton that the tax will be insignificant
does not agree very well with the
claim of its effects upon monopolies,
etc." while further on he actually CON-
plains that. "the single tax proposes to
place on land tax SO heavy that the
monopolies can not pay it and must
go out of business" This is laughable,
Especially when we consider that the
people are now spending millions in a
vain attempt to drive monopolies out
lof business. In the first place. no
lsinSle taxer asserts that the tax will
be Insignificant
| Land having no rental value. will as
stated, not be taxed, but the greater
the rental value, the greater the tax
1t is odd that Mr.. Osborn should con-
plain that the single tax will force
monopOlies 'out of business" This
indeed is what the single tax aims t.
do. and this is what attracts MANY
| thousands of men to the single tax
ranks. AS to the functions performed
by these monOpolies, the gentleman
may rest assured that the services
which they perform will be better per-
formed after the monopoies have dis
appeared, than they are now perform
ed. and society will still do business
at the old stand. Surprising the steel
trust were forced by the single tax to
release all of its land holdings eX.
cepting those which it would be willing
to put to their best use. Does it fo;-
low that we would have to do without
steel? 1t seems to me that if a thous-
and new steel mills would be opened
in three months and competition once
more established, we, would get the
benefit of big drop in the price c.
steel. The same with all other iii
dustries. 1t would be a case of less
dividends and more wages, as we'll as
II decreased prices. The greater de.
mand for labor in all industries, would
cause wages to rise; if not, why MOI?
Oh, yes, it would be at the expense
perhaps of dividends. but is there any
reason why it shouldn't be so? Unde"
single tax, monopoly is impossible
Mr.. Osborn should recall that the tax
could never exceed an amount whicl
would make it Improbable to hold
land idle.
We do not propose to tax over the
rental value of land hence it would
be profitable indeed for others to take
and work these lands after dhe trust
had been forced to let them go, ana
so there is really no reason to fear
that society "can not exist, without
its monopolies. .-...,, ..-..--
Pretending to have at heart the wei
fare of the poor man, Mr. Osborn con
tinues, 'the single tax is deceptive n
that it processes to provide the POOR
man home.". Who told him that the
lsingle tax would provide poor man 4
home? I am sure / didn't, but sal |
it would give poor man chance. b.
restoring to him his natural rights.
continuing he tells us mot for all the
world would we place the smallest OBJ
stacle in the way of him who has a
desire to possess home Indeed,
Mr.. Osborn's tender consideration for
the poor man is truly touching, and
therefore | cannot understand why he
condemns, without even half a know
ledge of what it really is. plan OF
taxation which as We have seen, takes
from the shoulders of the poor man
the burden of thousand unjust taxes
a plan of taxation which reduces tn
price of land so that it come within
the reach of the poor man; plan OF
taxation which will bring about the in
creased wages, lower priced building
material and other necessities which,
the poor man must have before he
can build the home he wants and
} needs. Why does he do it, just to be
stubborn?
All, fear me that Mr., Osborn
places other consideration before those
: of the poor mans welfare He might
explain how he expects the poor man
to ever own home, under the pres
[ ent system, when his earnings are tax
ell from him by countless unjust taxes
l when he is robbed before he can find
/ a place whereon to build home.
No. the single tax cannot inject ''in
I dustry. energy and frugality" into tn
2 individual man, but it will supply OPP
e portunity for these, instead of robbing
y him as. the present system does. Thl
lis what the man wants-opportunity
|. The Port Byron gentleman proceeds
/ to tell us that, according to it.
Il friends, the single tax has never beef
/ reduced to practice on any large soak
in complex society," to which h
: lcheerfully adds, "a few partial at
tempts to apply it in isolated cases an!
in exceptional conditions cannot dem
onstrate it's universal utility" Clearl!
III it is up to him to show how and why
the society of Australia and German
II is isolated, and not as complex as ours
and he might also explain what ar,
these exceptional conditions" Their,
llprevailing of which he speaks. vii
llhe do it? | demonstrated the success
Ilof the single tax SO far as it has beef
llapplied. and how he can deduce fail
ure from success, is something whici
! he should certainly explain, for it vii
| be interesting to degree. AS to singh