New-York tribune., 1912-01-21
DISCUSS TAX PROBLEMS
Mr.. Baldwin and Mr.. Martin
Speak at City Club Luncheon.
WOULD RAISE LAND RATE
First Speaker Advocates Sulli-
van-Brooks Bill, Saying 1t
Would Decrease Rents.

! Henry De Forest Baldwin and John Mar
tin were the contending speakers at the
regular Saturday luncheon Of the City Club
yesterday. They took for their debate The
Relation Of Municipal Taxation to Dis
trihuton of Population" using the Sullivan
Brooks bill as a foundation Mr.. Baldwin
advocated The passage OF the bill and urged
the lowering Of the tax on buildings.
! Mr. Martin took the opposite side OF the
question, attacking the Sullivan Brooks bill
and stating that 1t would not benefit any
| one materially, and would result In the
erection OF buildings of great height, which
| he considered an abuse of social better
ment., George Haven Putnam presided at
! the meeting.
In beginning his debate. Mr.. Baldwin
said
| The real interest in the discussion of the
/ Sullivan Brooks bill comes from the fact
! that If such a measure Is adopted " VIII
be emharking on fiscal policy which may
| have important consequences.
We ought. then, TO ask ourselves Is that
policy Just and expedient? II is necessarily
a political question. Whatever class OF the
! community exercises political domination
! seeks special privileges in the exercise or
the taxing power. The value of land meas
ures the advantage which can be obtained
by its use. Rent is the privilege pald toI
.
by everything which makes II more de-
sirable place 10 locate for dwelling or ousi-
ness.
Rent does not depend upon who paws
for the public improvements and for the
| local government, but upon the demahI
for land II we abolished the principe oi
! assessing for benefit and put the cost w
improvements now paid into tho generai
budget another set of people would pay
these costs. but the land owners would col
lcct the benefits as they do nov. 20
I
tends to lower tho value Of the land Inc
rent is not changed because Of the iaN.
| The landlord pays tho entire tax
on the contrary. taxes on buildings can
be passed on n the tenant. The tax be
comes part Of the carving charge Of the
building. and taking the TAX OF reduces
the carrying charge and hence encourages
Land IS held out ~ use in tho expecta-
tion that IL will become available for super
Tor use so rapidly as Ia Submerge IN"
carrying charges and give q proht
II vacant land is taxed at It's fun Naiu"
and Is not liable 20 any greater tax n II ~
improved the owner has no artificial IN
ducement 70 hold it out Of use.
II the tax We're taken ont the building
tenants would then only pay interest and
depreciation on the building. The rent for
the land value remains the same. There
for, 10 take the tax Of the building %.
creascs rent THE sullivan Brooks hill
would tend to lower rent and lower the
value Of the land II would deprive the
land owners. To an extent. Of their present
privileges of collecting th" dement's Will"
somehow else paws the cost ~ carving on
the CITY government. which privilege they
have capitalized In tho value OF their lam
Mr. Baldwin then pointed out that by
lowering the tax on buildings and taxing
the land the way would he opened for
larger number n people 10 settle i'm the
CITY Mr. Baldwin said that the criticism
that the removing Of the tax on buildings
would increase tho number of high build
ines was unfoundcd. He continued:
But the desire of landowners 10 get some
returns on their vacant property would
cause houses and buildings 20 be erected
and would reduce rents. giving the land-
owners a chance 20 compete. The sullivan
brooks bill would cause increased value or
improved property. II would cause far
less radical change than has already taken
Mace fn our taxing system. Fifteen years
ago propcrtv was assessed at oue-third it,
value, but to-day IL IN assessed At prac-
tcallv its full value The measure VIII
aesess improvements at half the ratio AT
which the land itself Il assessed This is
not giving to owners Of improvements as
much benefit as the owners Of unimprovcd
property enjoyed fifteen years ago.
Mr. Martin. in his speech declared tn"
proposed Sullivan Brooks bin would not
benefit any one materially. and would per-
petrate what ne considered an abuse of so
ciaI bettcrmcnt. the erecting of buildings OF
great height lie continued:
The first objection 20 removing IN" tax
ON buildings and putting the entire burden
on the land would he the fact mat IT "ould
tend 10 increase the number OF persons 10
The acre-that r.. 10 say, u would Increase
Inc average height Of buildings. The
builder would be ENCOURAGED TO put up n
higher structure II IL paid him. and this
I consider detrimental to the social ana
moral welfare Of the community.
In Fourth avenue there are many shy
gcraUers standing beside four and nv" story
old bindings These old buildings VIII re-
main there for years because the sky
scrapers next 10 them hay" taken away
the demand for any more room Tor the next
four or five years. The building Of all
| structures has gone ahead Of the demand
"A director OF the Equitable told me the
| other day that his company was refusing
| IA loan any more money for the construc-
! tion OF immense apartment and lott build
| ings. -,
! ~ tho LEGISLATURE would pass a bill restrict
| ing tho height Cf buildings to ten stories
/ 'TIen VIC would have twice as many build
| iucs q better looking city, and IN addition
! II would be a great social advantage. and
/ moro cuual normal and moral development
/ would be achieved.
! In closing Mr. Martin said that putting
| OF higher tax on the land would mean that
! the farmers would be taxed more to allow
the owners Of the big skyscrapers TO re-
duce their tax. lie said he did not think
this system would reduce the rents. Ac-
! cording 10 the speaker almost the same
thing was tried I'm Vancouver, I'm fact-that
| system prevails there now-and instead Of
lowering the rents when the price OF land
was reduced by the added taxation put
upon Il the rents went soaring. The
I method OF taxation on buildings and land
! known as special taxation as established
| in Germany and England should he adopted
! here. he said
/