The independent., 1903-05-14
COMPENSATION for Landlords

written for Henry George Edition
Of The independently
In the Cooper Union debate, be-
tween Louis r. Post Of Chicago and
Prof. John B. Clark of Columbia col
1eEe, the latter laid stress upon the
fact. in adopting the single tax, many
people who have invested their money
In lands would suffer loss and there
fore the single tax would be unjust
This objection to the movement has
often been urged and to the average
citizen is probably the most power
ful of all the arguments against the
single tax 1t is admitted by single
takers that the adoption OF this sys-
tenn would destroy the selling value
- ieaa aside from improvements
thereon, and to the popular mind, It
seems unfair to legislate the value
out OF any mans holding. Many peo-
pie who believe the single tax would
be good thing if it had been adopted
In the first settlement of the country,
cannot see how it could now be put
III force without working hardship to
q large per cent Of the people unless
the land owner be compensated for his
loss.
But those who study the single tax
without prejudice and who are Will
ing to follow truth wherever IT may
lead them, will find this objection
more apparent than real. PROFESSOR
Clark illustrates by citing the man
who owns lot worth five thousand
dollars on which he has built house
worth five thousand dollars. TO ex-
empt the house and lay all taxes upon
the lot would destroy the five thou
sand dollars value OF the lot, ana
whereas the man is now worth ten
thousand dollars, under the single
Tux he would be worth only five thou
sand dollars. To many people TINS
looks like confiscation, but is there
any real loss to the owner? Ii the
vaIue of the house and the lot are
now equal, ii will make his taxes no
higher by laying them all on the lot.
The house will be just as useful for
dwelling as before. He could sell the
property, 1t is true, for only half
what what it would bring now, but
that could make no difference, since
m other lands and lots, under the
single tax, would have no selling var
ne and should he want to build an
other house In some other locality or
erect a business block or factory
of some kind, ne would not have to
nay out large sum for a site. The
game principle holds good when ap-
piied to improved land in any form
where the land is being put TO Its
highest use. While the property own
er as cited in this illustration would
nominally own less wealth under the
single tax than under existing condi-
tions, he would in reality own just
as much real wealth, and II the sin
gle tax would benefit the community,
as all single takers claim, then ne
would share in the benefits. 1t Is
often pointed out that while the sim
gle tax might be all right in cities
and towns, it would be unjust to the
farmer since it is claimed that the
value of farming lands is greater than
that of the improvements and per-
sonal property of the farmer. This
may be true in many farming dis
tricts. or for that matter in all, but
here again the difficulty is only ap-
QdTGuLs las W lUCdl GdACo LoA oShooA
and township purposes in a farming
community the farmers must pay them
any way and they certainly can lose
nothing by exempting their improve
ments and stock. But where is the
farming district that does not con-
tain many farms and tracts Of unim-
proved land owned by non-residents?
70 exempt the resident farmers inn
proyements, stock and machinery, and
increasing the tax on the land held by
the nonresident could certainly be
no loss to the farmer. But III the
land values in farming districts are
greater than the value OF improve
ments and personal property, it is so
only because under the present un-
Just system the average farmer has
not been able to equip and improve
his farm as it should be. With tim
Der, coal, and iron lands monopolized
and tariff-protecte trusts controlling
all products used by the farmer In
improving and operating his farm,
and the highways by which he must
reach the markets of the world con-
trolled by private corporations, it is
little wonder that his stock, machin-
cry and improvements are OF less
value than the land. The single tax