Pierre weekly free press. (Pierre, S.D.) 1889-19??, 1915-11-25
SINGLE TAX
BY j. E. KELLEY

is single TAX g0Od for the fArmorsf
If it would be good for the farmers
to have all of the value taken out of
their land, single tax might be good
for them. Would anything depend
on how the value would be taken
from the land? Considerable. For
instance, the single taxer would take
the value out of land by imposing
burdens on land SO heavy that nobody
would offer any price for the land,
that is nobody would pay anything
for 1t, Hence, demand would be
destroyed.
How would this be accomplished?
BY quitting all other systems of tax
alton and placing all taxes on land,
would that take all of the value from
the land? If not, the Single Takers
have little scheme that will accom-
plish the desired purpose-take the
full annua! cash rental value of the
land for the use of the general public.
That is, if land had any additional
rental value after the farmer got the
taxes paid.
Then the farmers would be the
same AS a tenant at will? No, they
assure him that he could hold the
deed to his land if he desired to. Ali
the deciples of Henry George want
with land is the full annual cash rent
al value thereof. Suppose Tom Jones
owns a newspaper plant, would it be
good for him to have the public take
the full annual cash rental value Of
his plant for it's own use before Tom
could use penny of the income for
himself? If, WE'LL but the philosophy
is you know that the public put the
value into the land, consequently 1t
is entitled to its own.
How did the public put the value
in land? 1t made a demand for it.
How did the value get in the printing
plant2 Was it not demand also?
How would the single tax affect the
coal miner? Itwould not OBJECT him
at all. He would shift the tax to the
consuming public. How would it be
with the city land owner? He would
do the same thing Would not the
farmer shift the tax alsop No, tho
farmer is the only producer in the
world that puts his produce on the
market regardless of the cost of pro-
duction He alone never fixes the
price OF what he has to sell. Hence,
he would have to pay the tax.
Is there not now a movement among
city people to encourage farmers and
all others Back to the Farmp''
There surely is. Why? They are
afraid of falling Off in the food sup
ply. What would be liable to happen
were the public to levy tribute up
on the tiller of the soil as advocated
by the Henry George deciples? Would
anybody want to stay on land then2
Not otherwise than through force of
circumstances. What would be the
recourse of the consuming public If
under such an unjust system the rural
| lPopuihtiOtl iSte o1V iNL uAo III N0oVly
greater numbers than they are now?
which is quite inevitable. A public
| which would not hesitate to confiscate
the property of the men who furnish
| it's food supply, should not, and pro-
1 badly would not, hesitate to place
balls and chains upon them. Surely,
nothing less eflicacions would answer
| under such circumstances.
How is it about that vacant lot in
the city? Well, it certainly has done
heroic service for the single tax
theories. BIt-what is it worth?
They say a million. Is it in use?
They say not. Then the owner is 8
halfwit. No person of good sense
keeps million dollars worth of
property out Of use. Why don't they
make the owner pay taxes on that
vacant lot now? guess they do but
the single takers don't like to talk
about that; though the annual tax on
that lot at per cent amounts to $40,-
900. Are there many such lots2 Not
unless there are more rich fools than
we ever dreamed of.