The Colfax chronicle. [volume] (Colfax, Grant Parish, La.) 1877-1981, 1892-03-05

hims5u assumes this, not only in his
declaration of the perfect harmony be.
tween is but in the article from which
his correspondent quotes, for in this he
uses argumentc which have validity
only as applied to taxes on land values
and indeed at times uses the phrase,
TAX on the value of land" But in the
paragraph quoted and through the
article generally. he speaks of a tax
on land. In this lies the cause of his
confusion, or at least here is the reason
why it is unperceived by him For had
he written LAND values instead of
land" in the sentence quoted, it would
have stood as follows.
IF all taxes were placed on land val
ties only. every pound of pork, every
bushel of wheat every horse and COW,
every form of personal property would
be taxed
This. in its very statement, would be
clearly fallacious. For it 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 the
tax on land values.
But this is not obvious where the
term used is taxes on land" For the
term, land, without capitalization, means
all land. and it is 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. rs
the News states il, 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 the
most prolific source of economic con-
fusions and fallaciea 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 call
ed on to use. For words are not mere
ly the signs by which we communicate
our thoughts to others; they are the
symbols in which we ourselves think
Aud in a continued train of reasoning
we are even more apt to deludc 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 lie 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 a tax on land,
instead of on land values, inst as we
are. accustomed to speak of ad valorum
taxes on houses or goods, o. other forms
of personal property as taxes on such
things, Instead OF taxeson house values,
OF goods values ,or personal property
values - Ssk VN sgfk az =
But when we come to think of the
taxation, there Is a danger lurking in
the practice fof speaking of taxes on
land values as taxes on land. A tax on
any species OF things meansa tax on
all such things. There is no Danger in
speaking ola tax on the valle of pork,
or wheat OF houses or goods as tax
on such things fSince such things
must be produced by labor. apd value
attaches to them from the frat tax
levied on their value is q: IA, on all
such things as truly as woul4 be
specific tax But land has no ofiginsl
value. Land IS not produced BY labor.
but is the natural prsrequisite and field
of labor. Nor does value attach to it
from The quality Of usefulness Of from
the fact of use All land is not valuable.
nor is all used land Valuable. Land
only Becomes valuable when ffor
reasons ultimately resolvuble into the
general growth Sand impsovement) e
acquires a ssuperiority over Other land
open for use Hence, an sad vs]orum
tax on land differs from ad syalorume
taxes on things produced by labor, in
not being 2 tax on all land in use.
This essential differences is likely TO be
overlooked when It is spoken Of as a
tax on land. and.by an unnoticed juggle.
of>vords the conclrsion-isr reached that
# would fail on the user and increase
prices. It is into thfs verbal pitfall that
the editor of the News seems to have
fallen. ~
1t is hardly necessary to go over the
yariops. confnsionss of thought which
lead 10 the notion that taxes on land
values would fall on the. user Of land
and add to prices The subject has
been, treated over and over again in.
the columns 81 the Standard, and an
elaborate article by me, written in 1887,
was afterwards published in a 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 be shifted to any one else. and this
IS the reason why their influence as a
class has been sexerted in the past to
substitute taxation on the products OF
iator for taxation ON the value of land.
and is now cxerted to oppose the single
tax, which would be the reversal Of
<h~ v~~coeo lf