The Colfax chronicle. [volume] (Colfax, Grant Parish, La.) 1877-1981, 1891-02-21


down the price he asks, instead Of put
ing it up; for it IL 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
In value would mean increased taxes, he
would be glad to give It away or to let
1t revert to the 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 1t to think that
landlords who have tenants could shift
. tax on land values upon their tenants
can be readily seen from tho effect upon,
landlords who have no tenants 1t is
when tenants seek for land, not when
landlords seek for tenants. that rcnt goes
up.
To put the matter in form in which
1t can be easily understood let us take
two cases. Tho one, country where
the available land is all in use and the
competition Of tenants has carried rents
TO q point at which the tenant pays the
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 cam
get access to unused land. How. i'm
either case, il . tax were imposed upon
land values Tor remit could the landlord
compel tho tenant to pay it?
It may be we'll to call attention to the
fact that q tax on land values is not q
tax on land. They arc very different
things, and the difference should be
noted because confusion of thought as
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 somuch per acre or
50 much per foot-would fall ON the
user, barring such effect as 1t might
have on speculation. For such tax
falling equally on all land-on the poor
est and least advantageously situated a.
fully as on the richest and best situated
land, would become . condition imposed
ON the use of any land, from which there
conld be no escape. and thus the owners
of rentable land could add it to their
rents. Its operation would DO analogous
to that Of . tax on . producible commod-
ity, and 1t would in effect reduce the
supply Of land that could be used,
since no land could then be used
that would not yield sufi1cient 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 ita
value. It would thus not have to be-
paid upon the poorest land in usa
(which always determines remit, and 90
would not become condition Of use. or
restrict the amount Of land that could
be probably used, and 20 the land own
ers ON whom it fell could not shift IL on
the users Of land This distinction, IS
to nature and effects, between . tax on
land and tax ON land values, it il nee
essay to bear in mind.
1t Is also necessary TO bear in mind
that the value Of land Il something to-
ttlly distinct from the value of improve
zpents. II IL value which arises not
from the exertion of any particular in
- - - - -