The Butler weekly times. (Butler, Mo.) 1881-1918, 1912-10-24

80
part Of the land, adding to its value.
But this value is to be taken away
from the land and put on the free list.
In our towns and cities there are
thousands of houses far more valu-
able than the ground on which they
stand, often costing large sums, even
mounting to millions, to construct.
All these improvements are to be
segregated, separated from the land,
and exempted. What the vast aggre-
gate of all this would be l do not
know; all I know is that in some way
it would inevitably fall on the land
owners of the State. Just how this
situation would be met and adjusted
l cannot tell. The sum-total of taxa
ton would not be diminished by the
adoption of this scheme. The gov
ornamental need, State and local, would
not decrease. Destroy for taxable
purposes several hundred millions
represented in improvements on land,
we know that land itself-land some
where-would have to take upon
itself that loss and bear that burden.
Men often lease plats of land for long
periods and erect structures thereon
of vastly more value than the grounds
upon which they stand. Exempt one
of these costly structures from taxa
ton, separating it from the land, it
certainly would not be contended that
the value of the building should be
added to the value of the land. 1t is
easy to see how if that were done it
might work by excessive taxation a
practical confiscation of the land.
The complications and difficulties of
the situation would compel the shift
ing of burdens from one property to
another, and from one section OF a
city, county or State to another. To
say nothing more of this measure, it
must be apparent to every thought
full, experienced man that its adop-
ton would involve the State in mex
tricable confusion; and even if sus-
ceptible of a practical application it
would, all things considered, prob
ably increase the tax burden on land
approximately 100 per cent, thereby
depressing values enormously and
the agricultural and horti-
cultural industries of the State.
Again, if this plan should be agood
thing for Missouri, it should be equal
ly good for all the states and for the
National Government. Indeed the
scheme, according to its sponsors,
contemplates this ambitious and far
reaching development. Already this
identical proposition is now pending
before the electorate of Oregon, and
only the other day, while campaign
ing in that State, l had occasion to
discuss it there. Oregon and Mis-
souri, of all the States seem to have
been selected by the promoters OF
this scheme as the most gullible-the
most fruitful nesting places for the
advocates of fads and wild expert
ments. l recently read an extract
from a speech made at Chicago by
one of the leaders of this movement
in Missouri, in which he boasted that
he and his colleagues had been chief
ly instrumental in promoting and Sc
curing the adoption of the initiative
and referendum in this State, and that
their activities in that behalf were in
spired by the hope and expectation
of using that scheme to get this
scheme into the law of the State.
Thus does one exalted and disinter-
ested reform tread fast upon the heels
Of another. In this day and genera
lion about all one has to do with some
new fad is to brand it Progressive"
turn it loose, and then sit in the grand
stand and watch it go round the track
and come in under the wire a winner.
Don't forget that the single tax prop
aganda has stamped on its broad side
IN big red letters the word "Pro-
yressive." Look out for that tails
manic sign; it is full of possibilities
md probabilities.
But what would happen if this
principle, carried to its logical and
contemplated conclusion, should be
applied to the Federal Government
,y an amendment to the Federal Con-
,ksA,,k:ooo II ,,,o,,ll oho1scb - v:fe 40 |