The Dalles daily chronicle. [volume] (The Dalles, Or.) 1890-1948, 1891-05-25
THE SINGLE TAX.

The letter of Mr.. Yates, published in
another column is very clear exposit-
ion of what single tax men mean by
''unearned Increment" or the commun-
ity value of land that is the value that
that attaches to land by reason of the
presence of population, but it still leaves
unanswered the question that gave rise
to this controversy. What the CHRoN-
ICLE still wants to know is how can an
annual revenue of $62, 800 be raised from
real estate only, without increasing the
taxes of the farming community in
county that has million and a half of
real estate and million of personal
property? If we drop the personal
property and levy the $4,000 on real
estate only must not land owners have
to pay the $25 900 now levied on personal
property in addition to the $37 800 levied
on real estate? In other words must
not this levy be raised from 25 mills to
over AL mills, so that the farmer or
land owner who now pays tax of S25,
would, under the single tax system,
have to pay over $41. so? This is the
question and the CHRONICLE submits
that neither Mr.. Yates nor anyone else
has yet answered it. The argument of
Mr.. Yates, if it proves anything, goes to
show that the community value of land
should be taxed. This, the CHRONICLE
has never denied. What we do deny is
that the community value of land alone
should be taxed and every thing else go
free. Here is a man who located on a
piece of land 40 years ago when it was
wilderness. In course of years it be-
. comes an important town site. The
man sold odt his interest :or a cool mil
lion. 1t was all "unearned increment"
ifyou will. Shall we not tax him for
his million dollars? And if not, why
4 not7 He never earned a dollar of this
money. The community made it for
him, yet the single tax system would let
him free while it would tax the man who
had scratched and toiled to earn the
money to buy himself home on the
land so sold, while not a dollar of the
value of such land so far as the purchaser
is concerned is 'unearned Increment, -
but the fruit of his own honest labor.
There is nothing morally beautiful in
such a system.
1t is needless to remind us of the diff |
culties attending the taxation of per-
sonal property and how much, in spite of |
the vigilance of the assessor, will escape
taxation. In our own state, we are free |
to say, the law has never made any
adequate provisions for taxing personal I
property. Men are allowed to Milo nm
indebtedness sufficient to offset all they !
are possessed of and it is no part of the /
assessors duty to see that the exem ption I
is taxed but this is simply the abuse of
"a principle otherwise fair and Just. Be-
cause there are difficulties connected |
with the taxation ofpersonal property, it |
by no means follows that it should be |
exempt. Because personal property is
sometimes concealed it does not follow
that it is right to tax only that which
cannot escape concealment. Here is a |
man who has 10000 head of cattle or
sheep feeding off the public range. The
owner may not have SO much as rod of |
land. The single tax system would let /
him escape taxation for everything he |
owns while it would tax the homestead
of the man who is too poor to build
pasture fence for his family COW or team,
against the depredations of his exempt |
neighbor. These are not simply Incl !
cidents but part and parcel of the |
single tax system and no amount of
theorizing can make them right.
s