The Elbert County tribune., 1902-07-10


thnt needs the lenst protection and
costs the least to protect. and to ex-
Tempt therefrom the various classes of
propcrty-the great Industrial. com
mercinl anu financial Institutions
lquiring the greatest and most expen-
siye protection; TO destroy the recipro-
cal relations and fiagrantly yioInte the
principles of equality and Uniformity.
and TO unequnlly and unfairly appor-
ton the benefits.
"The question naturally arises, upon
what logical grounds are We asked to
make this chnnge?
"The authors answer to this oues-
tion Is. and has been. 10 the effect that
this system OF taxation has been tried
In the Australnsias and has been q
| great success there, bringing with II
progress and prosperity, and New
Zealand is the particular colony cited
Us 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 II so, is this proposed
system the same or similar to that In
operation there?
"Referring to New Zealand, we find
that In 1890, just prior to the adoption
OF the land tax system, the conditions
as to the ownership OF lnnd were such
as demanded some drastic measure to
arrest and eradicate land monopoly.
These lands were 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.
10 be qualified as an -elector one had
to hold certain area OF land.
Land mOuOpOIy was first n. bQ of
;ncked. and the first means of attack
Ing 1t was that ancient constitutional
and inalicnable weapon, .the Tux; so
there was put forward the measure
to tax land and incomes us the first
and most effective.
Both OF these taxes were made pro-
gressive. growing heavier us the taxes
grew richer. The small estates were
exempt from taxation and small land
owners WHO had mortgages upon their
land and improvements were 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
were penalized by an additional tax
being put on their land for that rea-
son.
Il think 1t mast be conceded that the
conditions in New Zealand are totally
different from the conditions In Colo
rado. Here no great estates have
been accumulated. nor are there likely
to be. Here the tillnble 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 gllttering In
ducements TO capitalists have been
held out In various parts OF the state
and large concessions OF land offered
in order to secure Investments in irri-
gntion plants for the purpose of fur
nishing water for all lands, stlll 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 few moments
thought upon this question would con
vince us that the conditions here are
not at all like the conditions found in
New Zealand nor do they call for the
adoption of any of the New Zealand
remedies there adopted for the purpose
of destroying the land monopoly.
1T must also be admitted that the
Bucklln measure falls short of the
New Zealand law.
''rhe Australassan land tax system
Is not In any sense a single tax; Ii is
supplemented by the Inheritance tax,
the income tax, the mortgage tax, the
tariff, etc, and as / have heretofore
shown, less than ten per cent. of the
governmental income is raised by this
land tax.
MIR. Eucklln admits this in his re-
port made to the Colorado Legislature.
THE Bucklin land tax system is,
however. in effect n single lax. in so
far as the local taxation Is concerned.
The BuclSlin bill has none of the fs-
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 APP
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.
80. 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 10 bear.
while those requiring the least expense
for protection carry the burden.
80. The various principles of equit-
able taxation cannot be satisfied with
| tho cfpUIa