The great West. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1889-18??, 1892-11-04

Does Mr.. Wakefield pretend to assert
that they would pay this rent, or land
tax out of a special fund they previous
ly set apart for that purpose?
The rent for such improvements, as
well as the land, location site) would
be paid by the tenant to the owner of
the improvements, who would pay the
land rent to the people, or government,
and keep the rent for the improvements.
Land is called valuable" because of the
large profits pertaining to the occupation
of such particular land, as site, or bust
ness location, which large profits are
divided between the business man and
the landlord, SO that only portion Of
the ''unearned increment" falls to the
share of the landlord as a land owner,
portion falling to the share of the
owner of the building, and yet another
portion to the capital invested in the
business for which such building is oc-
cupied. Under the single tax system,
as under the present system, all three
Of these portions would be shifted on
the consumers of goods, wares and COM
modities sold, or services rendered upon
such site. Mr.. Wakefield says:
Mr.. Ward overlooks the fact that land is
fixed quantity, which cannot be increased or
diminished, and that the power now possessed
by landlords to exact tribute from labor rests
upon their power to hold idle land out of use by
paying only nominal tax upon 1t. If they
were taxed to the full use value of idle or va
cant land they could not afford to hold it idle,
and would be compelled to improve or part with
it to those wishing to use it.
If were even willing to grant that
there would be no idle or vacant land
under the operation of the single tax, /
should yet contend that none but those
who occupied residence buildings,
owned by themselves and farmers $50
long as farm products are worth less
than cost, would pay any direct tax for
the use of land. Mr.. Wakefield says:
OF course under the rental tax rents would
quickly and largely fall, because vacant land
could be held only at a loss, hence would be i'm
proved by some one, and the great increase in
building caused by access to vacant land would
reduce rent of buildings to correct rates of in
terest on cost of buildings plus the rental value
Of the land In cities and villages it would
largely reduce rents hence upon Mr. Wards
own theory the consumer would pay less .as
well as pay to himself instead Of to a landlord
In this proposition is contained the
basic fallacy of the single tax theory.
Suppose Mr.. Wakefield tries to prove
that Sin cities and villages it (the
single taxi would largely reduce rents
of valuable lands or business proper
ty." If this statement were true, there
would no greater value attach to one
piece of land than to another, under the
present system. If man could not get
one piece Of land Qot) upon which to
erect a building, and engage in bust
ness, he would simply have to build
upon another, SO that all lots Of the
same size would be worth the same
money. The mistake the single takers
make is in supposing that one can move
the business center of city by simply
building quarters for it to occupy. It
is the fact that such scheme will not
work that makes some lots worth many
thousands of dollars and other lots a
few dollars only. Business buildings
are built under the present system
just as fast as the rent will pay
correct rates of interest on cost
of buildings and current correctly
rates of interest upon the value of the
land Oriental value of the land').
Again Mr.. Wakefield says:
But his most astonishing affirmation is that
under the rental value tax system vacant land
would pay no taxes, when the system is to tax
and according to its value regardless OF i'm
provements. After this it is not necessary for
INF. Ward to say he cannot comprehend the
system. or at least that he does not. During
the recent St Louis conference a vacant lot
was pointed out to US which had just been
leased by its millionaire owner, who lives in
Paris, for $500 per year, the lessee to pay all
taxes and assessments, and at the end of the
fifty years lease the splendid building to be
erected by the lessee becomes the property of
the landlord.
Close reasoners will at once perceive
that in the foregoing criticism Mr..
Wakefield does but reaffirm my ssmost
astonishing affirmation" Does he think
that the lessee he speaks of would have
paid the $1S,50O year if there had been
a proviso in the lease that he 1.-THE
lessee) should never erect any buildings
on the vacant lot? Or does he think
that the single tax system will develop
a race of idiots who will be willing to
pay the full rental value of land. as a
tax upon land they cannot sell and are
not able to improve? If Mr. Wakefield
were a single taxer limited, he might
well believe that vacant land would paw
some tax, but as a single taxer s'unlim-
tied" he says: sf they were taxed to
the full use value of idle or vacant land
they could not afford to hold it idle, and
would be compelled to improved or
part with it to those wishing to use it"
That is to say that land which it would
not pay to improve would be aban-
doned, remain vacant and pay no taxes.
The increased value of business lots
IS cities i canSed ~ the increase 81