The independent., 1903-05-14

fer you to Boston, because there thS
value of the land Is separated IRON.
the value of buildings. This makes a
comparison possible and ! submit this
comparison to you:
Land. Buildings.
1901 -. s547, ,246,600 $377 ,19o'sOo
1876 ......... 800, ,133,375 zoo,oz4'o-o
Increase 1927, 1925 $17l, ,766,5lo
In round numbers, in terms OF val
ya there is an increase in twenty
five wears of S227, 100000 for land, and
only s172G 900 for buildings. Tnat
IN itself is suggestive. But the tnlng
of chief importance is that the IN
crease in the building values implies
more buildings, whereas the increase
in the land values does not imply
more land. The land is precisely
what it was before. The only diner
ence regarding it is that 1t now Is IN
greater demand. Social advances anu
governmental protection have en-
HANGED its exchangeability. And they
have done so to degree, in twenty
fiye wears, which is measured in the
market by 1927 100000. This value
does not measure the exchangeablllty
OF artificial things produced ana
traded, as does the value OF houses,
it measures the eXchangeablllty OF
natural and social opportunities for
production and trade.
What is thus true OF Boston is true
of every progressive community In
the civilized world. AS a community
progresses, the affected area OF land
increases in value without increasing
in quantity or quality, while the sum
total of Improvements increases in
value only as it increases in guam
tity Or quality. Is it not evident that
here is radical difference, OF which
systems of taxation should take mo-
tice?
1t is precisely this difference that
underlies the principle we have before
us. When we say that all public rev.
enues should be derived from tax on
land values, we mean that the taxes
exacted of mea should be levied in pro-
portion to the value of their land be-
cause this is an advantage they de-
rive from society, and not in proper
ton to what they earn by producing
valuable objects, which is a benefit
they create for themselves. To use
Boston for a concrete illustration, the
single tax-this tax exclusively upon
land values-would be measured, not
by the millions of private improve
ment values, for those values repre-
sent what are justly private earnings.
1t would be measured by the two hun
dred and twenty-seven millions OF land
values; for they represent what are
justly public earnings-what are just
ly common earnings.
Consider what this change in taxa
ton would do. 1t would exempt in
dustry, enterprise and thrift from
fiscal burdens, and thereby foster the
production and secure the enjoyment
of wealth. That consideration alone
justifies the change. But there is
more to consider.
Look about you and see the vacant
land which is held out of use, or put
only to poor use, and yet Is measured
for exchange in terms of high value.
1t is held out of use because Its own
ers look to the future, and measure
it at more in value than 1t is worth
for present purposes. Let the mind
grasp the facts, and this becomes the
most impressive economic phenome-
non of our time. You may observe
it in every city and town, and all over
the country. Nowhere can you es-
cape it, not even in the desert.
Boston furnishes typical instance.
We must go to Boston again for an
illustration, because her tax system
supplies data According to the re-
turns of Boston for 1901, the vacant
land in that city amounted to no less
than Sc per cent of the whole taxed
area of the city. And this means va
cant land that is absolutely vacant.
Land that is improved at all, however
inadequately, is not put into the va
cant column.
Not only does this phenomenon Of
valuable vacant land held out of use
for higher prices manifest itself there
and in other cities, and in the towns
and villages of the country; it is to be
found, also, in the mining regions, in