The Lamar register., 1902-07-09

costs the least to protect, and to eX-
empt therefrom the various classes OF
property-the great industrial, com
mercial and financial institutions-re-
! quiring the greatest and most eNpeI-
sive projections; to destroy the recipro-
cal relations and fagrantly violate the
principles of equality and uniformity,
and to uncqunlly and unfairly appor-
=, tion the benefits.
"1'he question naturally arises. upon
what logical grounds are we asked to
make this changcl
| 1.-The authors answer to this Ques-
| ton Is, and has been. to the effect that
this system of taxation has been tried
in the Austraasias and has been IA
great success there, bringing with It
progress and prosperity. and New
Zealand is the particular colony cited
as demonstrating its great benefits.
I'VE are. therefore. led to the in
quiry, are the conditions here the same
| or similar to those existing in New
Zealand and If so, is this proposed
system the same or similar to that In
operation there!
"Referring to New Zealand, we find
that in 1880, just prior to the adoption
of the land tax system, the conditions
4 as to the ownership of land were such
as demanded some drastic measure to
|
'These lands We're mostly owned by
stock companies and corporations of
| British origin. The laws We're made
or dictated by land monopolies; land
grabbers had control of the provincial
councils. and the people had no voice.
To be qualified as an elector one had
to hold certain area of land.
Land monopoly was first to be at
tackled, and the first means of attack
ing it was that ancient constitutional
and inalienable weapon, the tax; so
there was put forward the measure
to tax land and incomes as the first
and most effective
Both of these taxes were made pro-
gressive. growing heavier as the taxes
grew richer. The small estates We're
exempt from taxation and small land
owners who had mortgages upon their
land and improvements We're also per-
mitted to deduct the amount of the
mortgage from their land value. The
improvements were not taxed in any
event. The absent owners Of land
We're penalized by an additional tax
being put on their land for that rea-
son.
Il think it must be conceded that the
conditions in New Zealand are totally
different from the conditions in Colo
RADIO. Here no great estates have
been accumulated, nor are there likely
to be. Here the tillable land in the
first instance has been sold to the
homesteader and preemptor In order
to make the land fertile they have
been compelled to construct great irri-
CATION systems to water the land. The
lands are still in the hands of the
small owners. Although glittering in
ducements to capitalists have been
hall tn, .ut.ta n,.ts of ,t,,t..
and large concessions of land offered
in order to secure investments in irrl-
CATION plants for the purpose of fur
nishing water for all lands, still these
inducements have never been sufficient
to turn capital to our lands. Where
lands are owned in any large quanti-
ties by corporations or other land own
ers, the strenuous effort has been to
sell them, and they have always been
offered ut most reasonable rates and
upon most reasonable terms.
1T would seem that n few moments
thought upon this question would CON
vince us that the conditions here are
not ut all like the conditions found In
New Zealand. nor do they call for the
adoption of any of the New Zealand
remedies there adofted for the purpose
of destroying the land monopoly.
ut must also be admitted that the
Bucklin measure falls short of the
New Zealand law.
The Australasian land tax system
is not in any sense single tax; it is
supplemented by the Inheritance tax.
the income tax, the mortgage tax. the
tariff, etc, and rs l have heretofore
shown, less than ten per cent. of the
governmental income is IA ised by this
land tax.
| Mr.. Bucklin admits this in his re-
port made to the Colorado Legislature.
1.-The Bucklin land tax system is,
however, in effect n single tax. in so
far as the local taxation is concerned.
'The Bucklin bill has none of the tis-
cal, economical or philosophical fea-
lures of the George single tax theory,
and therefore the arguments offered in
| support of the George idea do not ap-
ply to the Bucklin idea.
Principal Objections.
"Concisely, some of the principal OBJ
jections are:
Il. The burdens of the many are
placed on the shoulders of the few,
and uniformity of taxation is de-
stroyed.
so. The power of taxation and the
right of protection are not reciprocal
Those requiring the greater expendi-
ture for governmental protection are
relieved altogether or have a relative
ly small portion of the burden to bear,
while those requiring the least expense
for protection carry the burden.
'3. The various principles of equit-
able taxation cannot be satisfied with
the single tax.
n. 1t is not sufficiently elastic. 1t
has been asserted, with much show of
reason, that reasonable ground rent
for all the land in the state would not
be sufficient to pay the ordinary gov