The daily Missourian. [volume] (Columbia, Mo.) 1916-1917, 1917-04-17
N, j. DEFEATS TWO
ARGUING SINGLE TAX
Morris E. Dry and Frank
Lowe, Affirmative, Win
From Texas Here.
DECISION IS By 2 TO |
Negative Holds the Proposed
Method Is Inelastic, Inad-
equate and Confscatory.

Missouri won two debates last nigh
one against Texas here and the Othel
against the University of Oklahoma a
Norman. The single tax was debated
in each contest. S. NJ. Kendrick ant
Z. V. Abernathy represented Missouri
against the University of Oklahoma.
The debate between the University
of Missouri and the University of Tex.
as was decided in favor of Missouri
by 2-to-1 vote last night in the Uni
versity Auditorium. Missouri main,
tanned the affirmative of the question
Resolved, that all state and local
revenues should be raised by sin
gle tax on land values Morris F.
Dry of Mexico, Mo, and Frank Lowe
of Kansas City composed the Missou-
ri team; j. X. CrOssman and c. b.
Galloway, the Texas team. The judg-
es were Prof. w. F. Gephart of Wash
ingtOn University, Dean Olin Templin
and Prof. C. II. Dykstra, both of the
University of Kansas. Dean Walter
Miller of the Graduate School presid-
ed
The affirmative based its arguments
on the points that % the present sys-
TEN of taxation is a failure; CD the
land tax is fundamentally a concept;
CD land values are abundantly able
to meet all revenues.
Successes Of Tax Are Noted.
The speakers said that a modified
form of single tax is proving salts
factory in Australia, England, Ger
many, New Zealand and other coun-
tries; that the present system is a
tax on honesty and the ability to
evade, and that it causes men to hold
land idle for speculative purposes.
They held that a tax of $3.50 on each
SlOO worth of land would raise all
revenues needed to run the Govern
ment and that the tax on the average
farm would be only 81 higher than it
is now, while in some places, on
farms worth $4,000 or more, it would
be lower than under the presatn sys-
TEN. They said that the tax would
result in social and economic gain
and the solution of the housing prob-
lem in cities.
The negative opposed single tax on
the grounds that O it is ineiastic;
90 it is inadequate to raise the nee
essary revenues in some communities:
10 1t is impracticable of equitable
application; (D it would cause preda-
tory cultivation of the soil; Is, if |
means land confiscation; 60 it is sub
stituting for a defective system a
more defective one.
Farmer Might BE Injured.
They argued that in lean years tn.
farmer would be unable to ,ay rhe
tax and thus would be forced ofs the
land; that per cent of the million
ares have practically no land in
'estments and would therefore b. un-
laXed. Why should a farmer cam
ing $1,000 year pay a high tax, while
lawyer earning $4,000 a year goes
scot free?" they asked. Endea yoring
% show that the unearned increment
n land is small compared to that
n some stocks and franchises, thew
said that the value of land has in
,reased only So per cent, whereas
Bell telephone stock has increased
'oo,OOO per cent. To disprove the
,harge that there is a land monon-
'ly in this country, they pointed out
nat the average-size farm in Missouri
l25 acres and that there are only
hree persons in Boone County hold
ng farms of 1000 acres or more.
they held that seventeen-eighteenth
u the benefit of single tax would go S
o the aristocratic classes and only 4;
to the poorer classes. !