The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1890-05-21
LETTING IN LIGHT.
The Single Tax Men of Phila delphla Have q
Tilt With an Official Committee on Taxa

~AA@hD31hA AAlhs AsiuiSll 10 bdA
men made hit in the herring this
week in the hearing before the State
Commission to Investigate the question
of taxation. A. H. Stephenson and J.
L. Shoemaker represented the Henry
George Club, and the latter distributed
to the members of the commission and
others present copies of a proposed law
providing for a separate assessment of
land and improvements, and empower
ing local taxing bodies to exempt from
taxation all buildings, structures, liv-
ing trees, developments of mines, per-
sonal property, posts of profits, profess
sions, trades and occupations, money ct
interest, stocks, bonds and loans.
Mr.. Stephenson then had a hearing
before the commission. He presented
sound single tax arguments against
various other taxes; declared that in
Philadelphia workingmen's houses were
assessed at 70 to so per cent of their
value, and the real estate of large hold
ers at a much lower percentage.
"Would it not be so under youa sys-
temp" asked Chairman McCamant.
':No. Two men own lots equal in
size, side by side, on Broad street. The
man who has $780, 900 house on his is
to DO taxed on the land value alone and
the same amount as the other man, who
has aothing on his lot. Thei lots are
necessarily approximately equal in
value, and neither can be Disseminated
against without his finding it out"
''Aren't the present inequalities due
to the bad Judgment Of assessors" was
asked.
"They are universal, and yet there
must be some good assessors, was the
reply.
''Of course, gentlemen, this single
tax principle is going to utterly destroy
land speculation"
''Yes."
you'll destroy ownership" was sug-
gested.
Eyes, speculative ownership. Pos
session will be more secure than ever
One tax would make taxation equal
Now man can buy lot, go to Europe
for ten years, return and find his lot
doubled in value. We destroy his own
ership of that unearned increment. We
propose to tax only those values which
the city, the presence of the people
creates, and let man improve his place
as high as possible without tining him
for it. We propose to take the I'M
earned increment for the use of the
people who created it,"
Suppose a mans property falls in
value" suggested Mr.. Wright.
'Then we tax him less.'
Shouldn't we give the unearned in
crement back to him?"
Eyes, we do. We tax him less. Big
taxes will fall upon the big values, and
low taxes on the low land values. The
city will pay more. The farmer will
pay less. The value of land is mainly
due to the Improvements on it, and
when we exempt his improvements
there VIII be less to tax the farmer on"
Doesn't the building give the value
to the land" asked Mr.. McCamant.
How could you separate the value of
the building of the Girard trust from
that of the land it stands on?"
Before reply could be made Repre-
sentative Taggart hastily added to it
the supposition that if the houses were
clerred off Broad street to the Delaware,
what would the land be worth?
"Without the the people?" retorted
Mr.. Stephenson.
"The people wouldn't be there with
out the houses" snapped Mr.. Taggart.
"The houses wouldn't be there with
out the people, replied Mr.. Stephen
son, and he enlarged upun the doctrine
that the presence of the people was
what created the land value, and that
the only thing that made Chestnut
street houses more valuable than those
on Poplar street was the crop Of peo-
ple' that were passing along.
Editor George E. Mapes, speculator,
asked If the single tax system would
not drive wealth into bonds and forms
of property, SO that the tax would be un-
collectable"
"We won't drive any wealth out of
the country" responded Mr.. Stephen
son, ''and bonds only represent improve
ments.''
Suppose there are two FARMS" said
Mr.. Wherry; son one the improvements
are seventy-fve per cent; on the other
twenty-five per cent. The market
value of one 800 per acre; of the other
$50 per acre. How will you get the land
yalues?"
Subtract the value of the improve
ments from the market value" replied
Mr.. Stephenson. "The farm of 500 per
acre with seventy-tive per cent of inn
provements would be taxed on land
value of S25, and the faIm of $50 per
acre, with twenty-five per cent of i'm
proyements would be taxed on land
value of $50.
''Then," said Mr.. Wherry, ''there are
many farms in Pennsylvania where
there $4,000 worth of improvements on
SIS, 900 worth of land, say"
Then they wonld pay no tax" said
the witness.
Mr.. Wherry said that about quarter
of the farms in Pennsylvania would be
found so.
Then wouldn't your tax mean con-