Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-12-26
OUR MAIL POUCH.
The raxation Problem.

To the Editor of The Dispatch:
In your recent reference to the CORE
! spondence between the New York Tax Re
! form Association and Bishop Keane, on the
subject OF taxation, you arraign the Tax
, Reform Association for assuming position
which involves u contradiction OF princi-
| Piles. You say ''the Tax Reform Association
holds that she agents of production should
not be taxed, J" and then procee to the die
tum that "land should bear the main burden
of taxation" your contention being that
land is an agent of production. In this you
are right; it is the passive factor. But where
did you learn that the Tax Reform Assocn-
tion opposed the taxation OF all the agents
of production? fail to find any such sweep
ing phase in the letter addressed 60 the
Bishop, and feel convinced that the mem
bers of the association are too well ac-
quainted with political economSnot to make
a distinction.
The effect of taxing labor and capital, the
active factors OF production, is to restrict
production. to enhapce the price of COM
modities, hamper industry. retard improve
ments and interfere with the equitable dis
tribution of wealth. The effect. of tn king
the value, the passive factor. OF land, is to
stimulate production by causing laAd now
held idle, or half employed, to be pueto pro-
ducttye use, to encourage improvements,
enlarge the opportunities for laborand capl-
tai, animate industry and promote the f. ee
and natural interplay of economic forces
which lead to the largest production OF
WeitlCn ana 1tS Widest Q1StrlDu1lOn.
You say, to tax idle land and disused ma
chinery might be q wise discrimination in
the abstract, but how much revenue would
ityfeld? The fact is that things which are
true in the abstract are not so often futile
in practical sense rs we imagine. Our OBJ
Jecrions to their application in practice fire.
quently arises from their initiating against
some vested wrong, which we often have an
interest in maintaining. To recur to your
statement let nae say that the fact that ma
chinery is disused implies that conditions
nave nave made it economically unproductiye.
10 tax such machinery would only add
further obstacle to its use and aggravate the
conditions which lender it idle; and if the
tax be great enough, would even cause the
owners TO destroy it. Now il the term "idle'
be applied to land economically unpro-
ductiye-that Is so situated that what
1t is possible for labor to produce
on 1t is insufficient to afford the average rate
OF wages to such labor-to tax such land
would only serve to keep it out of use longer
than 1t otherwise would be. Thus il is
easily seen Gin the abstract that to make
such u discrimination" would be folly. But
II the land spoken of be ide-not by reason
OF its inability to yield enough to pay the
labor that might be employed on it, but be-
cause the owner sees that there is being
stored away in it q rapidly increasing value,
conferred upon it by the growth of the COM
munfty and its myriad expanding wants
and necesSities-then to tax such land be-
comes wise both in abstract and in practice.
For 1T will not only yield revenue, but it
Will cause the land to be put to a productive
use, giving employment to labor and con-
tributing to the satisfaction of human needs.
With regard to your assumption, which
you designate as fact, that i! from existing
land values We should deduct the specula-
tive element, together with Improvements
values, there would not be enough left to
raise more than p1ttance of revenue,
might say that, while You are not alone in
holding that objection, an equal number of
opponents of the single tax urge on the con-
trary, that the revenues would be so ex-
cessive above actual needs that it would
lead to widespread corruption and the
widest e1travagance. What seems to be
nearer the truth, however, is that the mat
ter would adj ust itself to Il basis that would
correlate with the law of rent, which law,
when clearly npprehended, enables us to
perceive in the coextension of growth ex-
lstlng between the revenues nece- sary to
defray the expenses OF n developing COM
munity and the value which attaches to land
by reason of tine growth of the community,
apart from any value conferred by individ-
ual owners, a natural adaptation of the one
to the other.
The most careful and conservative esti-
mates made by such practical men of affairs
as Thomas G. Shearman and others, also
goes to show that the revenue to be derived
from the land values of n community or a
State, are amply sufficient to defray all the
expenses of Government. The figures re-
Gently employed by Mr.. Shearman are those
used by Mr.. Edward Atkinson in an adverse
argument. j. B SHARPE.
PIrTsBURe, December "a.