The advocate., 1892-03-30

are taxes, not on land or on the use of land,
but on the possession of a special privilege,
the holding Of specially valuable land, the
possession of which gives to the owner, not
to the user, the power of appropnating a
surplus over and above the ordinary eanings
Of capital and rewards Of labor. While this
may at times be taken by person who is
at once both an owner and user Of land,
il always goes to him as owner and never as
user, and can be separated by selling or
renting the land. What a tax on land values
takes is, in short, what the user Of land
must pay to the owner of land in rent or
purchase price for the privilege of using
valuable land. IL can thus never fall on the
user Of land, never increases the cost of
production. and never add TO prices.
To me this seems nothing but play
of words, q tumble, senselesS jargon.
Perhaps, however, Mr.. George under
stands II.
To my mind, nothing Is palmer than
that under the operation Of the single
tax, there would be no land OtUnerS, al
though some or many may hold the pos
session Of valuable land by virtue Of the
ownership Of the buildings thereon, pay
ing more for such location than any other
man would care to bid. But, beyond any
possibility Of doubt, the rent (tax) not
only Of the building, but of the land also,
would be included in the profits per-
tanning to the business carried on upon
the land.
The tax (rent) paid by the farmer for
the land he occupied would Of course be
included In the price Of all his products,
but could not be added, because, unlike the
merchant and manufacturer, the farmer
has no voice In so pricing his products
as to pay profit above expense Of pro-
duction.
Even II the farmers as a class could 30
adjust the price Of their products as to
obtain a margin above cost, including
taxes (rent), they would yet, as consum-
ers, pay tWO-ffths of their own taxes
and tWo-ffths of the tax (rent levied
upon the valuable lands In cities and
towns, which the single takers say will
bear the bulk Of taxation.
All those occupying rented residences,
az tenants, would most certainly pay the
tax (rent) upon the land occupied by
the building occupied by them,
the owner Of the building merely acting
as a tax collector to collect and pay over
to the government such tax. Those who
occupied land with residence buildings
owned by themselves, would themselves
pay the land tax direct to the govern
ment. It is claimed that these two
classes, and, indeed, all classes, would be
relieved OF all other forms Of direct and
Indirect taxation. This, however, Is moi
true, from the fact that, as consumers
they must pay their proportionate part
of the tax (rent) levied upon the valuable
land In cities and towns. The individuals
who occupied such valuable lands al
vantage grounds upon which to accumu
late wealth, through the medium of the
factors interest and profit, and the
rendition Of professional services, would
pay no special tax for the privilege o.
occupying such lands, but would simply
collect the tax for the government. They
would, as q matter Of fact, pay no more
tax than any other person who LIVED
equally as we'll as themselve-i. g., IOhoS
consumption tcds as great and as costll