Los Angeles daily herald., 1890-02-04
Who would Ultimately Pay the
Single Tax?

'One OF the knotty problems IN Mr..
Georges single-tax doctrine is that by
placing all taxation on land values he
claims that the entire taxation will come
out of the unearned increment of lands.
The unearned increment, as we under
stand it, is the difference between the
value of land in its original state and its
increased value when by the aggregation
and growth of communities it has reached
it's actual or highest value. Now, the
value of land in its original state is moth
ing, or at most the usual nominal value
placed upon public land by the Govern
ment. Hence, if man owns piece of
land which from its richness and loca-
ton is worth 500 per acre, that would
actually represent its unearned incre-
ment. If our definition of Gland
values' as used by Mr.. George, is cor
rect, where would there be any differ
ence between taxing the land at its full
value and at the value it had acquired
by virtue of its value from the aggrega-
tion or growth of the community in
| which it is located? We fail to see any
Well, let US suppose that Mr.. Georges
system is in practice. The tax collector
says to the man who owns this land, you
have, under the cid system paid tax of
say 81 per acre OF your land. But now,
in order to meet the revenue from the
single tax, and there being nothing but
land to tax. shall require you to pay
$40 an acre on your land. Very well,
the owner would say, will pay you
that; but in order to get the money to
meet this increased tax l must charge ten
times more for what the land produces
than did before. Would not this be-
come necessarily the general rule, no
matter whether the land were owned by
the individual or the community? And
if so, would not the consumer in the end
pay the increased taxation on the land
We believe this conclusion to be ire
futable.
Now let us take the case of the city lot.
We will say that the unearned increment
in the value of the lot is the difference
between it's original value when people
were few here and lots we're many. Let
us say that that difference showed for
given lot an advance of $1,000.
No taxes would be levied upon
improvements, or anything else but
this "unearned increment" Under
the existing system the tax upon this lot
would be, say, $40 under the singletax
rule it would be 800. Who would pay
this increased tax of $50? Not the
owner of the lot, surely. He would add
it to the rents derived from the building
upon the lot, and the tenants, or users.
would pay the increased tax. >
So we may take TIE single-t.ax system
and apply it to any Niece of productive
land in town or coy 6try, and we shall
find that in the end al the added taxation
to land on acc9dnt of the exemption of
all other values from taxation. would
ultimately f1l upon the consumer or the
user-thgt is upon the non-land owner
le seeIns to us that this would be the,
PRACTICAL outcome of the single-tax sys-
lem, and that it is not avoidable by any
device that could be applied to it.
We all admit that our present system
OF taxation is unequal, unjust and afro
cious. We know that the rich men do
not pay their just proportion of the taxes,
that the great corporations and the great
syndicates of capital, and the money
changers, the land holders and the
usurers, in all conceivable ways evade
their just share of the burthens of gov
ernment. But they DO so by Sinking
and by false swearing or other equally
odious methods, Under the single tax |
system, however, they would be legally
exempt from taxation, and could whistle |
at the tax collector when he came |
around. Whereas now they do pay |
something, under the single tax system |
they would pay nothing.