The independent., 1903-05-14
THE TAX WHICH TIME IMPosKs

OF The independently
1t is subject of frequent remark
that the lifetime Of the best of new
buildings today cannot be figured to
exceed two score years-that with
swiftly accelerating changes, in forty
years these will have to give way to a
new and better order. Granting these
facts, If during the forty years the
new buildings shall yield to the land
lord interest upon their cost and two
and half per cent annually for de-
probation, he Is at no disadvantage
from the necessity, at the end OF forty
years, of tearing down and building
greater, while both labor, which builds
buildings, and business, wiIicn uses
buildings, will be greatly benefited by
such a process. Think what para
disc any great city would be il built
over new every forty years; yet the
users of the buildings can well afford
to pay two and a half per cent a year
for such luxury.
Any sensible readjustment and
equalization of taxation, should, it is
thought, take directly into the ac-
count this annual depreciation as a
tax imposed by time upon all products
of labor, tax SO heavy as to seem an
instant excuse for exempting them
from all other taxes.
On the other hand, while Time is
engaged in the destruction OF the
building it is occupied in the construc-
ton of the land value. The city OF
Boston furnishes a striking illustra-
ton of this fact, since the increase 10
the valuation of its land happens to
have been since 1888 almost exactly
five per cent year on its value OF
fifteen years ago.
The inequality of the present sys-
tenn is made apparent in the follow
ing calculation (based upon the above
assumption of two and half per cent
depreciation) regarding the land and
buildings of Boston for the last fif-
teen years, bearing in mind that it is
not the rent, either of buildings or
land, that is under consideration, but
only the effect of taxes and deprecia-
tion upon the one, and the opposi e
effects of taxes and appreciation upon
the other.
BUILDINGS.
The valuation of Boston's
buildings in 1888 was. 1924 ,000, 600
Times annual tax or depre- .....
citation (besides the city's
tax of " per cent which
is paid by the owner only
when he is also the ten
anti 21a per cent. For
fifteen years it has been
371a per cent or. ....... 8S,750,O0U
And the value of same
buildings in 1902 is..... .$146, ,000,0 ,0.J
LAND.
The valuation of Boston's
land in 1888 was. 1928 ,000, 900
Times average net annual
appreciation has been
latter paying city's tax
of IL per cent? for one
year per cent. For fif-
teen years rs per cent, or 245,O00,00O
And the value of the same
land in 1902 is. .$573 ,000, ,000
Thus the increase in the valuation
of land in fifteen years more than
equals the valuation of all the build
1nSS HIteen years ago.
Five per cent on this fifteen years
increase of two hundred and forty
five million would be more than
twelve million, which, added to the
four million assessed upon the land
in 1888 would be sixteen million, as
compared with the total of Boston's
taxes of eighteen million in 1902.
Those persons who agree with John
Stuart Mill that it would be SOUND
public policy and no injustice to LAND
owners. to take for public purposes
the future e increase in ground rent
will be interested to note what ar
opportunity is shown by the above
figures to have been lost fifteen years
ago for putting such a plan in opera
tion in Boston.
G. B. FILLEBROWN,
President Massachusetts Single Ia,
League. 6S Essex ST., Boston.
SSSSS$ r-
POSSESSION BUT NOT OWNERSHIP
CWritten for Henry George Edition
of The Independently
Al tax on land values is tax Of
rent, ground rent, while tax OF
anything produced by labor is a ia.
on wages. 1t ought not to take me-
1ono RI decide which is the hette