People's Pilot, Volume 2, Number 32, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 27 January 1893 — INDIVIDUAL INCOMES. [ARTICLE]

INDIVIDUAL INCOMES.

No Ma i io K titled to More Tban a Good Living and a Maki ig Fa >d For Old Says the Topeka Advocate: “We publish elsewhere in this issue a communication from R. T. Snediker, of Hartford, Kam, which, though in the main presents a good argument, contains some statements that in our judgment weaken it materially. Taking the following as an example: Bu t the people believe in the sacred of property, and If a man has an Income of Jl,i4>J,ihJ) or f 10,000,'W0 a year, the result of his own Individual effort, it is his, and down deep in their hearts they would respect a man who showed such marked ability. Now, as a matter of fact, no man ever had an income of >1,000,000 or >10,000,000 a year or of >1,000,000 or >10,000,000 in a lifetime, the result of his own individual efforts unaided by special privileges and discriminations which have given him advantages over his fellow men. In what occupation did any man ever earn such an income? It is folly to talk about it It was never done and never can be where men enjoy equal privileges in. the struggle of life; and we do not believe that well informed people, as a rule, will be found to entertain any superior respect for the class of men who from dividends on watered stock and gambling speculations, either in money or the necessities of life, have become possessed of the great incomes to which Mr. Snediker refers. While the fault is really with the conditions which permit such accumulations, yet these men are largely responsible for the conditions which have all been secured through bribery and corruption. ” I work each and every week day, many nights and part of every Sunday, but succeed in earning, or at least getting paid, less than >4 a day for a thirtyday month. And yet I am receiving remuneration for my labor which is three or four times the average wages realized by the masses of laborers or wage-earners. Now, if Adam had lived until now and had received >5 every day since his creation until the present time, spending nothing, he would have accumulated less than >11,000,000. Mr. Snediker is a single taxer of the strictest sect of individualism and believes that having given everyman (not free) access to land, the proper conditions are a hand to hand conflict with “the survival of the fittest’’ as the ultimate, the fight being waged under a banner inscribed “Every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost.” The single tax theory offers labor no boon, because it proposes to take as a tax the exact amount of benefit derived from access to land. Untaxed use and occupancy would give to all access to land and charge nothing for the privilege. The one theory is individualistic, the other socialistic, and between these two schools of thought there is an irrepressible conflict which will never cease until the nations of the earth recognize and acknowledge "the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man.” My esteemed friend, Mr. W. H. T, Wakefield, editor of the Jeffersonian, of Lawrence, Kan., in the course of (from his standpoint) an able article assailing the income tax theory, gives expression to identically the same thought as is expressed by Mr. Snediker. Speaking of the income tax, he says: Tried by the first test, that of justice, it falls In this, that it does not require contribution to the use of society in proportion to benefits conferred by society. One mar have an income derived from exceptional talents, energy, or self denial, by fortunate inventions, discoveries, etc., or by skill as an organizer and director of labor, yet receive little or nothing from society (government) and cause it little or no expense. Another may have the same income drawn from a monopoly of what really belongs to the people, as of valuable lands or locations, use of mines, forests, franchises, etc., and may also cause large expense to the government in protecting him in the enjoyment of special privileges. Herein we have the same selfish individualism advocated and the same failure to recognize the truth that individuals are but members of an organic body, the genus homo, otherwise known as society, the community, government, etc. It is to the whole of this organic body and not to any few individual members of such body that talents and ability belong. It is for the human race that energy should be expended and to humanity should belong all new discoveries of God’s old blessings, as well as all outward manifestations of the manifold kinds of genius with which the race has been endowed by its Creator. All incomes are paid in wealth produced by labor, while all laborers are entitled to the same remuneration for their best efforts for the same length of time. Broadly speaking, all are entitled to a comfortable living and a decent burial, no more and certainly no less, Xrom the common fund produced by the common labor of alt Allow me to reiterate: If actual use and occupancy were made a prerequisite to a legal claim to land including mines, forests, eta; if usury (interest) were destroyed by the inauguration of the sub-treasury plan and the nationalization of the banking system; if the people themselves owned and operated at cost all public utilities; if, in addition, laws were enacted and enforced which would render it impossible to organize and maintain a trust; if all these things were dbne an individual would find it difficult to pile up a million dollars in the course of a lifetime. Then if all revenues were raised by a graded tax upon net incomes above a certain sum, say >1,009, and upon estates and legacies, all men would be sure of a living, at least, free of rent, interest and taxes It would be interesting to have Messrs Snediker and Wakefield point out how many of the monopolies they speak of would or could continue to exist under such a system as I have outlined. And they might also endeavor to form a conclusion as to the number of individuals who would be liable for tax if each were allowed a good living and >I,OOO each year free from all taxation. I am aware that single-taxers and others will contend that an income tax cannot be collected; that it will be fraudulently evaded or sworn off, or charged up to expenses, or be recouped in higher rents and prices, or lower wages, eta To this I answer that if use and occupancy were made a pn>

requisite to land ownership there wouli no longer be any rent, high or low, while the competition of those business exploiters who did not receive any taxable income would prevent the income tax from being recouped in higher prices or lower wages. So far as evasion is concerned, the efforts in the direction of such evasion would be a matter of indifference to all those whose net incomes did not exceed one thousand dollars. An interesting struggle might be waged in the ranks of plutocracy, but labor would not be in it Labor, being assured of its total product, free from rent and taxation, could look on serenely, while the plutocrats watched and fought each other. But in case, or rather for fear, that some would yet accumulate too large a portion of the net production of the labor of the nation, every estate should be administered upon by a public administrator, or where there is a will, probated and executed by a public executor, and a heavy graded tax levied upon all wealth left by deceased persons, above a certain set and determined amount Geobgk C. Ward.