The Colfax chronicle. [volume] (Colfax, Grant Parish, La.) 1877-1981, 1892-06-11


contribute to public expenses. thus di-
minishing the burden on occupiers, and
that owners of building land would be
forced to offer their land for sale, thus
bringing down the price of land. Incl.
dentally, it was said in the report that
the ground rent or the price paid for
land" is not recompense for any in
dustry or expenditure on the part OF.
the landowners, but Is the natural re-
suit of the industry of the towns PEG.
pie themselves"
In February, 1886, after the report OF
the royal commission. Mr.. Saunders,
then in the house of commons, moved
in that body ''that no system OF taxa
ton can be equitable unless direct as
sessment be imposed on the owners OF
ground rent, and on the owners of in
creased values impaired to lands by
building operations or other improve
pents, 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 it issued
leaflet, to which the name of the first
president, Lord Hobhouse, was sub
scribed, and in which the following
statements were made:
That buildings, and not land, are
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 thu. Ii
rectly traceable to the paralyZing al
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. A
ground rent may represent the whole
or only 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
e4is, 900 equal to about 81, 900. 000, 0oO),
while the value of buildings was only
e212, 600, 900 Iabout 81, 900, 000 0oo), and
yet the owners of land paid only $500,
600 (s2, 500. OOo). inclusive of income tax,
while the occupiers of buildings paid
81, 900. 600 (s35. 600, o0o).
The effect of the agitation OF the
united committee was felt at the elec'
, 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 a committee on land valua
, ton was appointed which soon disposed
: of the frivolous objection. SO otter
= heard, that the value of land can not bt
| distinguished from the value OF i'm
i proyements. Some of the most expert
. enced real estate valuers of Londor
e were examined, and from them it wa!
: learned that it was their usual practics
S in valuing property to separate liant
from buildings, even where Statement
: of the values separately was not re
, quired: and as result of its investiga
{ ton, the committee reported that tn
4 values of land Could be distinguishes
/ from those of improvements for pur
1 poses of taxation, without difficulty o
n increased expense. The same commit
/ tee also took into consideration tn
n effect on overcrowding of rating vacan
land, and reported that the chief caus
|. of overcrowding is the DEAFNESS @
e building land, which would be modifie
o if it were taxed according to its sellin
> value instead of according to its actua
IS income; and it recommended a detalie
= plan of bringing ''all land, irrespectiv
os buildings and improvements, int
z the rate books for assessment under
|, separate valuation"
d When this report came into the cour
Gil it was opposed by the landlord II
" terest on, technical grounds, and an al
e parently innocent motion to defer II
a consideration until the report on til
lie same subject of the local governmer
5. taxation committee should be consiS
5: cred, was carried. But that motto
IS was not so innocent as it appeared
ID placed the question under the contr'
IS of the local government committee
n which kept it in a state of suspensio
d, for more than two years
b. That committee finally made Ion
is straddling report however. concludin
lie with a recommendation that the coul
lie ell accept the report as an exposition
s. many questions relatin g to local tax
I'd ton in London, and as propoundin
t. | nrincinles of reform worthy of the q