The Washington times., 1894-05-27
SMALL PROPERTY HOLDERS.
Would the Single Tax Increase or Diminis
Their Burdens?

Would the Single Tax Increase or Diminish
| Their Burdens?
To the Editor Of THE TINES:
| Two lots Of equal area and equal comparative
value are assessed at $1,000 each. The improve
ments on one are fairly worth 5000, and are
assessed at 100 Total assessed value, $500;
owners valuation, 5000; rents for s72o per
year. Tho owner does not complain Of excessive
assessment
The improvements on the other lot cost s4o,-
| Inmates the total value Of the property at 3d.
600. 1t Is assessed for s18 900, and he complains
that Is assessed too much he rents the prop
| cry for s., 900 per year
| The two pieces stand as follows:
FireCOwners valuation 1000 square feet OF
land, p,0UO assessed value, @30O; taxes, $3o I'M
$s70 '0'' ''1'--''''' '''0
- Total owner's valuation, 5000; assessed value,
| $40; taxes, $50 80
Rental value to owner s12O per year.
Actual tax on amount of owners valuation,
about ~ cents per 81 600
Second-Owner's valuation, 1000 square feet
OF lana, <o0O, assessed value 5000 taxes, si5;
| taxes, 5225
Rental value to owner, $500 per year; actual
tax on amount of owners valuation, about 30
| cents per 1900 Now, under the single tax sys-
tenn, which will be the rental value for taxable
purposes OF each Of these lots and on which prop
and on which reduced. VIII both lots be taxed
equally? And il So carrying out the illustration
to all small and large properties, will will not
poor men be paying still greater proportion OF
rich mems taxes than now? reply will oblige
SMALL PROPERTY OWNER
The foregoing question assumes the ex-
istence Of two lots Of equal area and value,
one carrying improvements worth $1,000 and
the other Improvements worth S44, 600. OF
10
and normal condition OF affairs. the poorer
man would probably be the sufferer from the
removal OF improvement taxes. But Is this
the case? Certain general rules may be laid
down as to the relation between the value Of
Improvements and the value of land. Land
values, broadly speaking. reflect back the
value of the improvements borne upon the
land. Thus, where the improvements are of
a minor character and the neighborhood less
attractive TO wealthy people, these land
values are low. On the other hand, where
improvements are OF the highest possible
character, these land values are both abso-
luteiy and relatively highest. These rules
were thoroughly illustrated for the city OF
! Washington 10y the investigations of
Hon. Tom l.. johnson two years ago.
He demonstrated that in the more
modest neighborhoods of our city land
values constituted but small percentage of
the total values OF homes while on, for in
stance, Massachusetts, avenue. between Fif-
teenth and Sixteenth streets. land and i'm
provement values on the average improved
lots equaled each other, and on T street, be-
tween Ninth and Fifteenth street, where i'm
provements are of the highest character they
were IN value lar outstripped by the value OF
the land carry them. which. in the language
of Johnson. offered "a potentiality of wealth
beyond the dreams of avarice.''
Whenever we find man erecting forty
four-thousand-dollar house in three-thou-
sand-dollar neighborhood. or. on the other
hand, building a three-thoUsand-dollar house
in a aforty-four-thousand dollar neighoorhood,
We will readily conclude he is committing an
economical folly, for which he will be suffi-
cientiy punished without invoking the tax
laws to complete the work.
1t Is true that we from time to time see old
and WORKOUT houses left on expensive
ground, but on examination we will generally
lind such places owned by spectators. who
permit them to cumber the ground TO assist
in paying taxes. We're all taxes levied simply
on the value of land such structures would
speedily give place 10 others appropriate to
the neighborhood.
Roundly speaking. the total assessed
value OF land IN the city is twice as large as
that OF improvements. Let US take, how
ever, the case of the average small house
holder. His land is assessed at $1,000; i'm
provenents. 1880; total, s2.500; tax cat
S1.50 per Sl00). $3.50 ler year. Ii improve
ments were exempt, and the District raised
the rate of assessment to correspond or to
S2.25 per 500 per year, his tax would be as
follows: Land, $1,000; tax, 22.50 per year.
By this partial adoption of the single tax
leaving out of view all other considerations,
he would gain SIS per year.