Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1891-12-31

''If all taxes were plsced on land vail
mes only. every poun6 of pork. every
bushel Of wheat. every horse ana cow;
every form OF personal property would
be taxed"
This. in its very statement would 30
clearly failaciouA For IL is evident
that . tax on land values would not fall
on all the land on which such things
are raised there being clearly some
pork, some wheat some horses and
cows, and some things of the nature OF
personal property which are raised on
| land that would be unaffected by tho
! tax on land values
1 But this is not obvious where tho
4 term used is taxes on land" For the
term, hand. without qualification, means
all land. and it il perfectly true that
| taxes falling on all land would increase
the cost of all the products of land
And so the form of the proposition. as
the News states it, leads to. or at least
hides, the erroneous conclusions
| Here is an instance of the danger in.
political economy of . loose use OF
terms This is beyond all others tho
most prolific source of economic con-
fusions and fallacies. The one thing
that whoever wishes to think clearly
on economic subjects must bear in
mind is the necessity of attaching pre-
else significance to the terms he is cali
ed on to use. For words are not mere
" the signs by which we communicate
our thoughts to others; they are the
symbols in which we ourselves think.
And in a continued train of reasoning
we are even more apt to delude our
selves by an inexact and shifting use OF
terms than we are to delude others
The editor of the News in speaking
of taxes on land evidently means taxes
on land values. He uses the two terms
as interchangeable, and usage sanctions
the practice. The only tax on land to
which we are accustomed in the United
States is an ad valorum tax; and this is
commonly spoken of as tax on land
instead of on land values, just as we
are accustomed to speak of ad valorum
taxes on houses or goods, or other forms
of personal property as taxes on such
things, instead of taxes on house values,
or goods values, or personal property
values
But when we come to think of the
taxation. there is danger lurking in
the practice of speaking of taxes on
land values as taxes on land. A tax on
| any species of things means a tax on
all such things. There is no danger in
| speaking of tax on the value of pork,
or wheat, or houses or goods, as tax
on such things Since such things
must be produced by labor, and value
| attaches to them from the first, a tax
levied on their value is a tax on all
| such things as truly as would be
specific tax. But land has no original
value. Land is not produced by labor.
but is the natural prerequisite and field
of labor. Nor does value attach to it
from the quality of usefulness or from
the fact of use All land is not valuable,
nor is all used land valuable. Land
only becomes valuable when for
reasons ultimately receivable into the
general growth and Improvement it
acquires superiority over other land
open for use. Hence. an ad valorum-
tax on land differs from IA valorum
taxes on things produced by labor, in
not being a tax on all land N use.
This essential difference is likely to be
overlooked when it is spoken of as q
tax on land. and by an unnoticed jusgle
of words the conclusion is reached ts at
| it would fall on the user and increase
prices 1t is into this verbal pitfall that
the editor of the News seems to have
| fallen.
| It is hardly necessary to go over the
| various COMMISSIONS of thought which
lead to the notion that taxes on land
values would fall on the user of lan7
and add to prices The subject han
been treated over and over again in
the columns of the Standard, and an
| elaborate article by me. written in 1887,
was afterwards published in tract en-.
| titled, Taxing Land Values" There
| is no dispute about it among econo-
mists worthy of the name, nor is there
| any doubt of it among landowners
They know very well. if only by rule
of thumb. that a tax on the value OF
land would fall upon them, and could
not bs shifted to any one else, and this
is the reason why their influence as q
class has been exerted in the past to
substitute taxation on the products of
labor Cor taxation On the value of land,
and il now exerted to oppose the single
tax, xhich would oe the reversal of
that rocess.
AMI the fundamental reason why
take o. land values can not fall on
users CT add to prices will always be
clear to any one who will remember
that taxes on land values or economic
rent are not taxes on land They are
taxes, not on land or on the use of land.
but on the possession of a special priv
ilege. the holding of specially valuable
land, the possession Of which gives to
the owner. not to the user, the power
of appropriating a surplus over and
above the ordinary earnings of capital
and rewards of labor. While this may
Mt times be taken by person who is
at once both an owner and user of land.
it always goes to him as owner and
never as user and can be separated by
selling or renting the land. What
tax on land values takes is, in short,
what the user of the land must
pay to the owner of land in rent or pur-
chase price for the privilege of using
valuable land 1t can thus never fall
on the user of land, never increase the
cost of production, and add to prices
1t is this that gives to the single tau
its economic and moral perfection
We do not claim that it would tax men
equally, either in the sense that il
would call on men for equal sums. or
for equal proportions of their earnings
or their expenditures. We claim for il
something infn tely higher-that it
would tax men j. lily. 1t would not
call on them to pay in accordance with
their production. nor in accordance with