Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1890-12-18
SINGLE TAX DEPARTMENT.
TAXING LAND VALUES.

| tAAOhfy 0eoIkC III AZ
very common objection to the prop
! osltlon to concentrate all taxes on land
values is that the land owner would add
the increased tax on the value of his
land to the rent that must be paid by
his tenants. 1t is this notion that in
| creased taxation of land values would
fall upon the users, not upon the owners
of the land, that more perhaps than any
thing else prevents men from seeing the
| far-reaching and beneficent effects of
doing away with the taxes that now
| fall upon labor or the products of labor
and taking for public use those values
which attach to land by reason of the
| growth and progress of society.
| The taxes levied upon land values, or,
| to use the politicO-ecOnomic term, taxes
| levied upon rent, do not fall upon the
| user of land, and can not be transferred
| by the landlord to the tenant, is con-
coded by all economists of reputation.
However muct they may dispute as to
other things. there Is no dispute upon
this point. Whatever fimsy reasons
| any of them may have deemed it ex-
| pedient to give why the tax on rent
should not be more resorted to, they all
admit that the taxation of rent merely
diminishes the profits of the land owner,
can not be shifted on the user of land,
can not add to prices or check produc-
ton. Not to multiply authorities, it
will be sufficient to quote John Stuart
Mill. He says {section 2, chapter 3, book
s, 'Principles of Political Economy'):
A tax on rent falls wholly on the land
lord. There are no means by which he
can shift the burden upon any one else.
It does not affect the value or price of
agricultural produce, for this is deter
mined by the cost of production in the
most unfavorable circumstances, and in
those circumstances, as we have so often
demonstrated, no rent is paid. A tax
on rent, therefore, has no effect other
than its obvious one. 1t merely takes
so much from the landlord and transfers
it to the State.
The reason of this will be clear to
every one who has grasped the accepted
theory of rent-that theory to which
the name of Ricardo has been given,
and which, as John Stuart Mill says,
has but to be understood to be proved.
And it will be clear to every one who
will consider moment, even if he has
never before thought of the cause and
nature of rent. The rent of land repre-
sents a return to ownership over and
above the return which is sufficient to
induce use-it is a premium paid for
permission to use. To take, in
taxation, part or the whole of this
premium, in no way affects the in
centive to use OR the return to use; in no
way, diminishes the amount of land
there is to use, or makes, it more diff
cult to obtain it for use. Thus there is
no way in which a tax upon rent or land
values can be transferred to the user
Whatever the State may demand of this
premium simply diminishes the net
amount which ownership can get for its
use, or the price which it can demand as
purchase money, which is, of course,
rent, or the expectation of rent, capital
lied.
Here, for instance. is a piece of land
that has a value-let it be where it may.
It's rent or value, is the highest price
that any one will give for tit is a
premium which the man who wants to
use the land must pay to the man who
owns the land for permission to
use it. Now, If a tax be levied
on that rent or value, this in no
wise adds to the willingness, of any one
to pay more for the land than
before; nor does it in any way add to the
ability of the owner to demand more.
To suppose, in fact, that such tax
could be thrown by land owners upon
tenants, is to suppose that the owners of
land do not now get for their land all it
will bring, is to suppose that, simply
whenever they want to. they cam put up
prices as they please.
This is, of course, absurd. There
would be no limit whatever to prices
did the fixing of them rest entirely with
the seller. To the price which will be
given and received for anything. two
wants or wills must concur-the want
or will of the buyer, and; the want or
will of the seller. The one wants to
give as little as he can, the other to get
as much as he can. and. the point at
which the exchange will take place is
the point where these two desires come
to a balance or effect compromise. In
other words, price is determined by the
equation of supply and demand. And,
evidently, taxation can not affect price
unless it affects the relative power of one
or the other of the elementsof this equa-
ton. The mere wish of the seller to get
more, the mere desire of the buyer to
pay less, can neither raise nor lower
prices. Nothing will lower prices I'M
less it either increases supply or de-
creases demand. Now, the taxation of
land values, which is simply the taking
by the State of part of the premium
which the land owner can get for the
permission to use land, nei th err increases
the demand for land nor decreases the
supply of land, and therefore can not IN
crease the price which the land owner
can get from the user: Thus it is i'm
possible for land owners to throw SUCH
taxation on land users by raising rents.
Other things being unaltered, rents
would be no higher than before, while
the selling price of land, which is de-
termined by net rent. would be much
diminished. Whoever purchased land
outright would have to pay less to the
seller, because he. would therefore be
called on to pay more to the State.
But, while the taxation of land values
can not raise rents, it would
especially In country like
this, where there is SO much.
valuable land unused, tend strongly to
lower them. In all our cities and;
through all the country, there is much,
land which is not used. or not put to it's
best use, because it is held at high
prices by men who do not want to or
who can not use it themselves, but who
are holding it in expectation OF profting
by the increased value which the growth