Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1909-09-11


should be- distinguished from other
forms W wealth. and ask why should
you tax ono form OF wealth and let
others alone7 a Invests his savings In
land. n ln railways or Industrial stock
why should YOU place burden on a
/ which you do NOT place ON By
The answer OF the ministry 10 this
argument Is that lt is not proposed 20
tax past but only future "unearncd
.ncremcnts. The past Increases in land
value. though unealued. have often
been sold 10 those who paid full value
for them and thus earned them as
much as anyone earns value. In taxing
only the future incrcments. the minis
try admits that IL might break up some
Of the large estates by compelling the
owners % use them more productivity.
hut this result the ministry declares
would be public gain The maln ar
rumcni behind the government pro-
posal ig this, In ~ small island with
growing population. taxing system
which checks monopolies of land own
ership and az the same time increases
the effective supply OF land for AN pro
ductive uses and which in addition 90
an these results. reduces rents also
this Is a. policy of social and economic
reform based on the demonstrated facts
OF economies
The case Tor the government is put
by The Manchester Guardian In these
words
"a Trademarks business or q profess
sional practice may owe some increase
OF value to the growing size and pros
perty of the town But any uneafned
value here is much less certain. and
less c8lculabl than that of land. is
emergence is checked by competition,
while land Is always limited supply.
t would be impossible in practice TO
distinguish it from the earnings OF abil-
ty on enterprise Of the business mani
ager or the professional man, IT'S fuc-
tuations would be too intricate. Land
Is fixed It's rise Of value can be- meas
ured and this riso. allowance being
made for expenses OF development can
be- imputed entirely Co social causes.
Therefore admitting thar there are 9TH
or forms of uncarned Increment. tpere
remains "A good reason for singing out
land values FOR special treatment All
taxation is In this sense discriminative
IL cannot be taken as reasonable on
lection against taxing any sort OF
property on income that YOU DO not
similarly and simultaneously tax an-
other sort. II you put tax on tea.
you are not IN reason called upon 10
put tax on sugar or bicycles. Finally.
IL must be- borne in mind that other
unearned' incomes do not escape the
Increased Income tax and death duties.
though IL is not feasible TO vsriue them
separately for specific taxatlon as is the
ease with land value and liquor IL
censes.'
The argument OF the opposition is
thus stated by the London Spectator:
rs il not rather the fact that the
prosperity of a town attracts new peo-
pie who at once share and increase its
prosperity, and that their new compet-
ton raises the price Of the land? II
the town Is not prospering no one
wants 10 come To Il. and though the
ratepayeIs carry on their self-regard-
ing activities AS usual vacant lots on
the outskirts are advertised for sale in
vain That several persons simultane-
ously want land which a year or two
earlier no one would buy does not seem
a very good reason for penalizing the
landowner in an especial manner, as
n he We're responsible for other peo-
pleis desircs, WheRg more people than
nfiar 'NAs,pt. ~ tfttNhorses or pearls
! OF silk or Qbinihe, the price Of these
things increases Why not tax the
owners as wicked rcsiaters and again
as Immoral receivers OF increment value
which they cannot prove 10 the salts
faction Of the commissioners to be d.
rectly due To- their own labor2"
The British proposal to tax the "un-
earned Increment or the rising rent
value If land due 10 increase OF popula-
ton is attracting the closest attention
Of political scientists Of all countries.
II Is perhaps the most notable attempt
Of this century 20 change the basis Of
national taxation from values pro-
duced by individual effort to those arts
Ing from the growth Of the community
itself