The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1890-12-24

ton upon it, and even rich man will
be driven to seek purchasers or tenants,
and to get them he will have to put
down the price he asks, instead of put.
ing it up; for it is by asking less. not
by asking more, that those who have any
thing they are forced to dispose Of must
seek customers. Rather than continue
to pay heavy taxes upon land yielding
him nothing, and from the future in.
crease in value, of which he could have
no expectation or profit, since increase
would be glad to give it away or to let
it revert to tho State. Thus the dogs in
the manger, who all over the country
are withholding land that they can not
| use themselves from those who would
be glad to use it, would be forced to let
go their grasp To tax land values up
to anywhere near their full amount
would be to utterly destroy speculative
values, and to diminish all rents into
| which this speculative element enters.
And, how groundless is it to think that
landlords who have tenants could shift
a tax on land values upon their tenants.
can be readily seen from the effect upon
| landlords who have no tenants. 1t is
when tenants seek for land, not when
landlords seek for tenants, that rent goes
up.
To put the matter in form in which
it can be easily understood let us take
two cases. The one, country where
the available land is all in use and the
competition of tenants has carried rents
to point at which the tenant pays tho
landlord all he can possibly earn save
just enough to barely live. The other,
country where all the available land
is not in use and the rent that the land.
lord can get from the tenant is limited
by the terms on which the tenant can
get access to unused land. How, in
! either case, If tax were imposed upon
land values Tor rent) could the landlord
compel the tenant to pay it?
1t may be we'll to call attention to tho
fact that tax on land values is not
tax on land. They are very different
things, and the difference should be
to them may lead to the assumption that
tax on land values would fall on the
user. A tax upon land-that is to say,
tax on all land Of so much per acre or,
so much per foot-wouId fall on the
user, barring such effect as it might
have on speculation. For such tax,
falling equally on all land--on the poor.
est and least advantageously situated as
fully as on the richest and best situated
land, would become condition imposed
on the use of any land, from which there
coslld be no escape. and thus the owners
of rentable land could add it to their
rents. Its operation would be analogous
to that Of tax on q producible commod-
ity, and it would in effect reduce the
supply of land that could be used,
since no land could then be used
that would not yield sufficient to
pay the tax. But tax on economic
rent or land values would not fall on all
land; it would fall only on valuable
land, and on that in proportion to It's
value. 1t would thus not have to be
paid upon the poorest land in use
(which always determines rent), and so
would not become condition of use, or
| restrict the amount Of land that could
be profitably used, and SO the land own.
ers on whom 1t fell could not shift 1t on
the users of land. This distinction, as
to nature and effects, between tax on
land and tax on land values, it is nee.
essa,y to bear in mind.
1t is also necessary to bear in mind
that the value Of land is something to-
tally distinct from the value Of improve
ments. 1t is value which arises not
from the exertion of any particular In
dividual but from the growth and pro-
gress of the community. A tax on land
values, therefore, never lessons the re-
ward of exertion or accumulation. It
simply takes for the whole community
that value which the whole community
creates.
While 1t is not true that a tax on land
values or rent falls on the user, and thus
distributes itself through increased
prices, it is true that the greater num-
Der of taxes by which our public rove
MUGS are raised do. Thus, speaking
generally, taxes upon capital fall, not
upon tho owners Of capital, but upon tho
users of capital, and are by them trans
ferred to the consumers Of whatever the
capital is used to produce; taxes upon
buildings or building materials must
ultimately be paid in increased build
ing rents or prices by the occupiers Of
buildings; imposts upon production or
duties upon imports must finally fall
upon the consumers of the commodities.
This fact is far from being popularity
appreciated, for, II 1t were, the masses
would never consent to the system by
which the greater part Of our revenues
are raised. But, nevertheless, it is the
vague apprehension Of this that leads
by confusion of ideas to the notion that
a tax on land values must add to rents.
This notion will disappear II 1t be con-
sidered how it is that any tax given
to the person first called on to pay it the
power OF shifting it upon others by an
increase of price. The general principle
is this: A tax upon any thing or upon
the methods or means OF produc-
ton Of any thing, the price Of
which is kept down by the ability to
produce increased supplies, will, by in
creasing the cost Of production, check
the supply and thus add to the price Of
the thing, and ultimately fall on the
consumer. But q tax upon any thing
upon which the supply is fixed or mo-
nopolized, and OF which the cost OF pro-
dnction is not therefore a determining