Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1892-04-28
SINGLE TAX DEPARTMENT
Mr.. Horn Falls Upon the Single Tax.

The single tax theory is at last as
sailed by man who has studied it. He
| is Roswell &. Horn, once a member of
| Congress. Nor has Mr.. Horn studied
| the single tax in a merely casual way.
| Il is a subject to which he has given
long and patient study" No one
would suspect this after reading his
criticism, which appears in the Tri-
bune, but he says it is so.
| By way of introduction, Mr.. Horn in
forms his readers that 1.-The single tax
theory was proposed and advocated in
Europe nearly one hundred years ago.
and that after examination, the finan-
ciers of Europe discarded it as vision
| airy. He should be more explicit with
his facts when hurting what he regards
| as weighty arguments Having given
the subject long and patient study he
must be able to name the place more
definitely than ''in Europe" and the
time more exactly than nearly one
hundred years ago" Who proposed.
| who advocated, who examined, who
condemned. and when and where was
all this done? Surely, Mr.. Horn does
not allude to the PLY siocrats of France.
| This impot unique bore less resem-
/
! pit bears to peach tree. Besides. as
| they fourished more than hundred
years ago the statement that the the
| DRY was proposed nearly a hundred
! years ago. coming as it does from a
man who has given long and patient
study to the subject, can not alone be
| presumed to indicate that he refers to
| them. Yet we are at loss to guess
| L. = = Al,
Gratis that he alludes. 1t is Of little mo-
ment, however, for few people will at
tacn as much Importance as Mr. Horn
| does to the conclusions of European
fnanciers who fourished nearly a
| hundred years ago"
Passing from history to political
| economy, our critic makes an exhibit
ton of the kind of long and patient
| study that he has given to the subject,
| by repeatedly using the terms land"
| and real estate as interchangeab BILE
| Lawyers, when dealing with legal
| problems may do this, for legal prin-
| ciples distinguish property not accord
| ing to its economic character, but as
movable or immovable. But students
| of political economy may not do it
| without confusion; economic analysis
| logically resolves real estate into two
classes of things-land and improve
| ments.
Though his readers especially those
who rely upon his assurance that he
| has given long and patient study to the
subject, are liza BILE to be misled by con-
| fusion of these terms, Mr.. Horn himself
| does not appear to have been. He really
seems to understand that the single tax
is intended to fall upon the value of
land alone, irrespective of improve
| ments. But he does not comprehend
the subject despite his long and patient
study. If he did he could not suppose
that the single tax would confscate
improvements. On this point he OBJ
iects that taxing the value of land ire
spective of improvements would ''of
| necessity carry with it the right to use
and occupy the improvements" because
you can not separate a brick block from
the land on which it stands without the
entire destruction of the block itself"
In the course of his long and patient
study, Mr. Horr evidently neglected to
confer with anyone conversant with
real estate transactions. Nor does his
study seem to have involved any very
H. W tiC iC-
suit. as exhibited in his criticism, it
was more in the nature of a 'cram" for
examination than of a serious inquiry
Of course, no one supposes that we can
separate a lot of land from the build
ing it supports without destroying or at
least removing the building; but neither
does anyone. with the possible excep-
ton of Mr.. Horn, imagine that the sim
IL
of buildings from blocks. What
it proposes is separation of the
value of one from the value
of the other. That this can be done
with substantial equity, almost any
school boy knows; and that it is con-
stantly done, any man familiar with
real estate transactions could have told
Mr. Horr before he exposed the deplor-
able effect upon his mind of long and
patient study.
1t should be said that when Mr.: Horr
speaks of the separation of farm land
from farm improvements such as ditch
ing and fencing. he does disclose a
glimmering notion that a separation of
values and not physical separation is
proposed, for he remarks that the two
values are so interlaced with each 9TH
err that no human ingenuity can sepa-
rate the one without subordinating the
rights of the other" But is it possible
that Mr. Horr, after long and patient
study of the subject, really believes
this?
Let us put the question to any fairly
intelligent farmer: whose farm lies in a
we'll settled farming community: If
a fire were to sweep over your farm.
burning your buildings, your crops, and
your fences, and in consequence of the
disaster you should abandon the place
until the bitches choked up and a Sec
ond growth had made new clearings |
necessary, would you have any more |
difficulty in determining the value of |
the farm afte: it had reached that con-
dition than there was just before the |
fire." It would insult his intelligence |
to even hint that he would. Even Mr.. |
Horn could do it if he was familiar with |
real estate values in the eiJh borhood. |
And does Mr.. Horr suppose it necessary |
that the improvements of farm should |
be thus destroyed before its land value |
can be appraised? Is it not as practi-
cable to appraise the land values of inn
proved farms while the Improvements
exist as when they have disappeared?
This, however, is not wholly ques-
is something that is done. Massachu-
sets. for the purposes of taxation,
separately appraises the value of land