Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1915-02-16
0Be 8ees80
sZsMe2a8oaT



FLORENCE, Neb.. Feb. Ito the
Editor Of The Bee: / see BY the editorial
columns that our senator. l.. J. Quinby.
ana Q. Nando Cowles of N5rfo.., are he,-
ing quite a discussion on the single tax
question. was at one time quite en-
Unused over single tax, but now take my
stand for a graduated tax to be assessed
on all property and discriminate against
none. except TO exempt a man who is
worth less than 500 allowing him to give
one days labor on the road i'm payment
for his tax.
Mr.. Quinby asserts in his argument that
this unearned increment is what he il
after, and why is not the purchaser of
land entitled TO this mutual increment
which is made by a supply and demand
market, the same as any other article
should be sold for? For instance the war
raised the price Of wheat, which was in
reality r. larger demand for wheat, and
consequently the price went up, and It is
the same way with everything, excepting
where a monopoly controls the price on
certain articles. But did our friend ever
consider the fact that single tax would
deprociate the price OF land on account
of taking away the spectators demand.
Now, say that Il depreciates one-half in
value which would be my estimate under
the single tax system. Then how are we
going to get enough money in taxes to
run the county. state and government IL
land values depreciate one-half in value?
And why this tax discrimination when
the graduated tax system covers all mu-
tual increment of every nature and kind
without discrimination on the assessment
of property, namely, assess all property.
Find out what each individual is worth.
Have sales or offers recorded at actual
value II necessary. Bank books open for
the assessor and so forth. Commence ac-
ton upon the man worth $4,000 and scale
it up each 5000 more with a larger mill
or per cent levy. by the county or state
under the graduated system In this way
society gets back part OF that mutual
increment without discrimination upon
any certain kind of property, and It shoul-
ders the tax upon the man who can af-
ford TO pay It. And on the man, with
few instances excepted, who earned his
$4,000 without the help Of others.
Just another word with regard to that
valuable lot that Mr. Quinby speaks OF
under single tax, 1t depreclates In value.
Mr.. QuInby may hesitate to acknowledge
this. but the sum and substance of all
single takers is cheaper land. so the peo-
pie can get more homes Now. under the
graduated system, II a man offers $4,000
for said lot. the owner would be assessed
on that value, but Il would not take away
any value from the lot or no one should
advocate a tax law TO take value away
from property that supply and demand
market has created.
And I assert and believe under the
graduated system more tax can be levied
and less chance of property decreasing In
value and no investor to be disturbed,
as under the single tax, as he pays his
tax upon what he is worth and not upon
any particular property. No one Is TO
blame on account of land going up; In
fact. that ID nothing unusual Just what
we want so that graduated tax L speak
of can clip their wings when they are
worth more than $1,000 The tenant class
can still get cheap land in the west ana
should not be discouraged on the single
tax law so their land will not advance
as Mr.. Quinby thinks. The rural credit
hill that we expect to become a law az
this session OF our national congress VIII
solve this tenant farming question Tar
more than single tax. Am l correct:
c. L. NETHAWAf.