Iron County register., 1892-06-23
Shifting the Land Value Tax.

A. E. Davis. of Independence, Ore,
asks what he truly calls that time
honored question about shifting the
land value tax from the landlord to the
tenant. 1t is for an inquirer, not fol
himself, however, that he wants an
answer. The question as he puts it is
''What would hinder a man who rents
his building under the single tax scheme
from making his tenant pay gocc
share of the amount of this tax on the
value of his land?" We have answered
this question over and over. Mr.. George
has fully explained it in a tract, which
we now publish: and John Stuart Mil
disposes of it so completely in hi,
principles of Political Economy" that
it seems almost waste of space tc
answer it again. But Mr.. Davis is right
in soliciting an answer, and, after all,
it is not strange that it should be sc
often asked, for there are very few peo-
pie outside of the ranks of single tax
converts who have given any intelli.
gent consideration to economic prob
lems This time, however, we will not
answer it ourselves, but will let the De-
troit News, one of the leading papers
of the west, answer it for us. We
copy from a recent editorial in Il at
paper:
Take, first, the owner of valuable un-
improved land On whom can he shift
the tax? He has no tenant, at least, to
charge it up to, therefore he must payit
himself Nor can he shift it on some
future purchaser. The price of land is
governed by it's availability, and as a
tax does not add to this, the tax can not
be added to the purchasing price.
A landlord with poor house on a
valuable lot can not add his land tax TO
his rent. The house will rent for no
more than any other house of that class
in that vicinity, no matter what the
land tax is. A cottage within half a
mile of the city hall, however, will rent
for more than cottage outside the
three-mile limit. But this is because il
is nearer business, not because it pays
higher tax. 1t is worth more to live in,
as it saves, for instance, car fare, time
going to and coming from work, etc.
This value the landlord assesses on the
tenant; the single tax compels its pay
ment into the common treasury.
Whether the municipal tax be one per
cent. or five per cent, the tenant puys
the same rent.
A landlord can not add his land value
taxes to his house rent, because the rent
of the house is governed by the demand
for, and supply of, houses. He gets all
he can now. Should he charge more,
the tenant would be compelled to leave,
for he can pay no more than his compet-
itors if for business purposes, and will
l. n,xr11 Co..
idence purposes.
The moment rents are increased more
houses will be built; and sthe moment
more houses are erected, competition
between landlords for tenants will re-
duce rents to a sum just sufficient to pay
the going rate of interest on the capital
invested in the industry of building
houses.
Under the operations of the present
system of taxation the owner of valu-
able land charges the tenant the high
est price he can get for its use. He
charges him rent for the land and rent
for the house. Under the operations Of
the single tax the landlord will still
charge the tenant this land value rent
and house rent; but the house rent will
be less, owing to houses being built
more cheaply, while the land value rent
will remain the same. But right here
comes the great difference between the
two systems. To-day this entire rental
of land, made valuable by the commu-
ity, goes into the pockets of the land
lord. Under the single tax much of
this value created by the community
will be absorbed by the tax. To-day
the rent tenant pays for the use of
land stays in the landlords pocket.
Under the single tax this rent for land
will be absorbed by taxation, and so, il
rightly used, will return to the COM
All political economists of note, from
the time of Adam Smith to the present
day, agree in the statement that tax
on land values can not be shifted. It
sticks to the land affected, and neither
the grain raised nor the goods manu-
factured thereon can be increased in
price thereby. The landlord can not
add the tax on land values to the rent,
the merchant can not add it to lis
foods. and the farmer can not add 1t TO
the price of his produce.