Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1892-04-07

1 =
ton can be equitab} unless direct as
ground rent, and on the owners Of in.
creased values impaired to lands by
building operations or other improve
ments, as recommended by the royal
commission on the housing of the work.
ing classes" An interesting debate
followed, but the resolution was re-
ferred to the town holdings committee,
where it was pigeon-hole.
In the following year, 1887, "The
united committee for the taxation Of
ground values" which now issues the
campaign address quoted above, was
formed; and in the same year 1t issued
leafiet, to which the name of the first
president Lord Hobnouse, was sub
scribed, and in which the following
statements were made:
That buildings, and not land, arc
liable for taxation is evident from the
fact that when the buildings are remov-
ed, or destroyed by fire, taxation
ceases. although grount rent continues
to be paid to the owner.
Land can not be lessened in quantity
by taxation, but building is restricted
thereby.
The evils of overcrowding, the stag
nation of trade, and the general want
of profitable employment are thus di-
rectly traceable to the paralyZing and
unjust effect of the exemption of land
from taxation, which causes heavy
burdens to fall upon buildings.
The object of the united committee is
to substitute the taxation of land for
the taxation of buildings Land should
be taxed according to its value. Il
ground rent may represent the whole
or only a part of the value. The actual
value should be taxed whether the
whole remains with the landlord or in
part belongs to the occupier.
At that time the value of the land in
the Metropolitan area of London was
f4iS, 600 equal to about $4,000. 600, 000),
while the value of buildings was only
g212. O0O, 900 labout $1,000, OOc O00), and
yet the owners of land paid only $780,
600 (S2, 500, 0OO), inclusive of income tax.
while the occupiers of buildings paid
81. 600, 900 (s35. 600. 0OO).
The effect of the agitation OF the
f..ited committee was felt at the cleo
ton for members of the present London
county council, several who were more
or less radical single tax men being
elected Among these were William
Saunders, Lord Monkswell and Lord
Hobhouse Upon the organization of
the council committee on land valua.
ton was appointed which soon disposed
of the frivolous objection, SO often
heard that the value of land can not be
distinguished from the value of inn
provements. Some of the most expert
enced real estate valuers of London
were examined, and from them 1t was
learned that it was their usual practice
in valuing property to separate land
from buildings, even where statement
of the values separately was not re-
quired; and as a result of its investiga-
ton, the committee reported that the
values of land could be distinguished
from those of improvements. for pur-
poses of taxation, without difficulty or
increased expense. The same commit
tee also took into consideration the
effect on overcrowdinJ of rating vacant
land, and reported THAI the chief cause
of overcrowding is the DEAFNESS of
building land, which would be modified
if it were taxed according TO It's selling
value instead of according to its actual
income; and it recommended \ detailed
plan of bringing "all land, irrespective
o. buildings and improvements, into
the rate books for assessment under q
separate valuation" 4
When this report came into the corS,-
Gil it was opposed by the landlord in
terest on technical grounds. and an ip-
parently innocent motion to defer its
consideration until the report on The
same subject of the local government
taxation committee should be consid-
cred, was carried. But that motion
was not so innocent as it appeared. 1t
placed the question under the control
of the local government committee,
which kept it in n state OF suspension
for more than two years
That committee finally made long
straddling report however. concluding
with recommendation that the coun-
Gil accept the report as an exposition Of
many questions relatin q to local taxa
ton in London, and as propounding
principles OF reform worthy OF the Mt
tention Of parliament. On the part of
the advocates of ground value taxation
in the council an amendment was offer
ed, THAT the council is Of opinion
that the existing system Of local taxa
ton in the metropolis unduly favors
owners at the expense OF occupicrs, and
that it Is urgently necessary that this
injustice should be rcdressed." The
amendment was carried by the decisive
vote Of 50 to H.
A motion that in redressing the In.
justice it should be Subject to equit-
able arrangement as regards existing
contracts" was lost A further motion
to give landowners a direct representa-
ton adequate to the immediate inter-
est in local expenditure which they
will acquire"-in other words, TO In.
crease the voting power of landlords in
proportion to the increase of their land
value taxation---was also lost, the vote
being 20 for the motion TO ss against it.
At this stage the question now rests,
and it will rest there until after the
1t must be remem bcred that the coun-
ty council has no power to establish
methods of taxation. 1t can only rec
to parliament. But If the
county council candidates of the united
are returned at the up
preaching election. the next parliament
will be officially advised by the county
council TO authorize the adoption of the
single tax for London; and if, at the
elections now so near.
the liberals succeed. London will soon
the single tax for all pur.