Marble Hill press. (Marbel [sic] Hill, Mo.) 1881-1923, 1912-08-15
The Single Tax Amendment.
BY RUSH II. LIMBAUGH
CONTINUED from lRsl week }

which We are called To decide What
Is TO be- our decision
Before n people change any form
Of constitutional construction in
which lies the welfare Of societv, II
is first expcdient 10 determine
whether the present condition Of
the thing which is TO be changed is
unsatisfactory and II II is, second Ia
find beyond the shadow Of doubt
whethe, the proposed system will
remedy the unsatisfactory condi'
tons
Thus We come to our first inquiry
j. the present system Of taxation
/unsatisfactoy' For answer hear
the voices that come from Our de-
lucrative coincils. read the stories
Of poverty and oppression, heed the
pleadings that come from the homes
Of the poor AMI helpless In all Of
them there is constant complaint ol
exorbitant taxes Of inequality OF
taxation and Of mlnahle tarifI
rateS Excessive prices on ncceSsi-
ties are coming to b. q menace 10
prOgress. On every side can he
found inequality oiconditions Here
IN D state whrre there Is CROUCH tot
a We find thousands of poor aud
helplesS Why, We wonder. should
tkerc he such difference Why
thpuld some suffer while Others live
h luxury Why should women
lnint with hunger and little children
usrd the morning ot life m the
trradmill ol toll While We hear Of
a ~ nj and helplcSsnc-S We henr also
of capital wasting. couupunS and
o., rrSsinN. These ycyy same prob.
kms lrouhig,i--t --tIcnY. ..ieontc Hts
solution vas the single tax The
~same nrDhlems still exist IN they
demand a chauGcr-.u Undoubtedly
there are numerous wrongs IN our
whole social. industrial and polu,ical
system Conditions are unsatlsfac-
tory. Will the NnGic tnN produce
TIE desired remedy
DR. Frank D fctter. professor o.
political economy ut Cornell univer.
sity aud one Of the leading modern
economists has this to say about
the single tax II the theory of
value on which II is basel Was
sound the doctrine would have IRE
sistahle reasons in It's favor But
IL is just here that the first objection
10 the single tax must be brought IN
These orihOdox rcfouners who are
responsible for this scheme have
plainly erred They have made no
attempt to distinguish between pro-
duction due to brain and effort and
that due to the ownership ol land
and other material property Land
is not the basis Of all value as they
Believe and IL Il were the single tax
theory would be m improper method
of taxing value, A man might sell
his farm for $4,000 and keep the
money while the buyer keeps the
farm. The man who owns the farm
would have to pay taxes while the
man who has the $4,000 would be
free from any taxes OF course land
WIS the basis OF value in both cases
but the man who has the money
has property that is valuable after
the land is no longer his. Thus IT
is clear that other things besides
land have value, Consequently the
single tax theory loiters OH false and
unsubstantial foundations
Besides this we have seen. from
its history. tina, the single tax scheme
was a result Of uncompromisine
prejudice Observing the unlimited
.ealth of a few and the helpless
poverty of the masses, Karl Marx
fastened to the famous conclusion
that capitalists reap not only the
harvest of their own sowing. but
likewise that Of the poor Henry
Georee observed conditions in a
much different environment, but
in a large measure the same. Having
accepted the views of Marx he
~ nbed on to more dangerous
a. - IL. ,tra,s cold and hitter i'm /