The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1890-03-27
BABY, DEAn
M0RELAND AFTER KNIT.
COe Emt TOacArav" 81, CANTOR, d)

ED, a.DEMocRATi In recent com.
municaiun, MIR. kint4 suggested that
write an article ahowing whya tax upon
land YhlucA cannot bU RlnliCd "untu lns
bora aholdOm.n lie adds that may b0
able 10 convince othCh N cannot con-
vince him. Remembering tho old ndagui
"a mau convinced against hla will, III of
the Same opinion alill,n have but little
hope OF convincing Mr.. Kinla, But, ~
the question OF taxation IN of vital import.
auce, and ~, as II should do, cxriung
continually growing interest, viii CONF
ply with hin auggCstion, and explain 90 tho
best Of my ability, why land taxes cannot
be shifted from the owners to tho users
OF land, na taxCa on wealth confessed.
ly are shifted.
To make u clear wo will reduce Il 10 n
simpler form. Can the owner OF land col
lcct the tax from the renter by adding II
TO tho rcutY Tho answer OF political
cconOmy is that ho cannot, This w also
the answer OF everyday common sense;
for II any land owner could collect
nn increased rent, ho would do 30 AZ once
without waiting 10 be taxed, Land owu'
era charge all they can got now Tor tho
use OF land, aud u pNrL OF II woro taken
from them In taxation, they could not Col-
loct II from the tenants In increased rents
NU9 llRNN NhNl ~ " NNIN hWlNll AlNlll
them or lost In speculation, Mr.. KnR
no doubt Will readily admit that "
every land ownor IN this city wcro 10 lose
onch year at pokcr, sum exactly equal
10 what each ono would have 10 pay uns
der the single tax, they could not collect
ono cont moro IN rent than they can now
do. Nor could they, " instead Of losing
II NJ tho gaming table, they wcrO conl-
PEELED 20 pay II 10 tho government ns u
tax, II may bo said that II such u tax
wcro imposed, tho land owners might
combine and refuse 10 rent land except ~
an increase that would include the tax,
But there IL nothing to prevent thom from
combining nowi and IN these days OF
trusts and combines, II is quito certain
that they would do so, N thoy could secure
an increased rental thereby. Tho rental
value of land is the excess OF It's value
for all purposes over tho most desirable
land that can be had FREQ Of rent, This
excess is all that the land owners can col.
loct as rent, and II cannot bc Increased
by the dictum Of one or thousand lnnds
lords, but tax on rent has tendency TO
diminish this excess by bringing vacant
land into use.
This explanation will, think, make II
clear TINT taxes ON land values cannot ho
added 10 the rent OF land. But as all
economists ngrco that taxes ON Chpitul
are paid by the uscra, aud not by tho own.
era OF capital, and many people are una.
bic TO 500 why taxes on rent should not
follow tho samO rulo, II muy ho we'll 70
chow tho distinction between tho two
classes OF property. Capital 10 tho pro.
duct OF labor, and taxes on capital uro
collected by tho owners from tho ueers In
Increased rates OF interest. This will bo
apparent 10 any who will compare tho
current ratio OF Interest with tho ratio OF
non-taxnblo bonds. The users OF capital
In turn collect the taI from tho conflimor
In higher prices. Taxes on tho products
OF labor increase prices by restricting
production, and thus lcpsoning the num-
Dor or amount Of such products seeking u
market. But land Is not u product of la
Dor; and whilo tho amount Of land in OK
istence 10 invariahle, tho amount seeking
q market varies with varying conditions,
There IL q great deal OF land hold out OF
use for speculative purposes, nnd q tax
on land values would force thiB land into
tho market, 10 compete with the land al
ready In use, and instead OF increasing
rent, such tax would causo n reduction
in all rent.
II is common remark OF the Thought.
less; "Oh, we'll, II makes no difference
how taxes arc collected, labor has IL all TO
phy III INC enu any way but IN point OF
fact II makeg all tho difference IN tho
world, tho difference between absolute
freedom aud industrial slavery, Labor
now has 10 produce al tho wealth taken |
for the support OF National, State and |
municipal governments. in addition 10 |
what Ia paid 70 the land ownera for tho |
privilege OF living and wording on Che |
earth, Tako oil wealth that IL collected |
through tho tariff md internal revonue,
As well Rs wnat favored individuals arc |
enabled to abstract from the consumers |
by the aid OF the protective tariff, udd 70 |
this oil that 10 collected FOR State, county |
and municipal purposes, except what now
fallaon land values. Now LOT us suppose
thiu immense aggregation OF wealth 70 bc |
Divided nnong the ConAum0rn OF tho
country In oxaci proportion 70 what they |
commune. In II not Rslf.evident that this |
would ba lcmemdous gain 70 the indun. |
TRIAL eiassesTi Well. this 10 sSaet,y What