THE A B C OF TAXATION 
162 
taxation an additional 2 per cent (55) of its 
gross ground rent each year for ten years, amounting 
in that period to a total of 20 per cent, coupled with a 
corresponding reduction in the tax upon buildings and 
personal property, that city would be raising to-day 
from its land more revenue than now by 
Twenty per cent of $55,000,000 (p. 18) or . . $11,000,000 
The increase in the gross ground rent in the 
same ten years has been .... $20,000,000 
So that Boston would be taking in increased taxation 
to-day little more than one-half of its “unearned incre 
ment” for the same period. 
Under this supposition the $468,000,000 valuation 
of ten years ago would still remain untouched by 
taxation, as is now the case with substantially the whole 
$653,000,000 valuation of 1907. 
The foregoing Boston figures are submitted simply 
for purposes of illustration, not in any way as support 
of a specific recommendation. 
Important Conclusion 
If the preceding argument is valid, it establishes the 
fact of gross inequality in the incidence of taxation as 
between land values and improvement values. If 
it is admittedly wrong that present land values should 
be untaxed, how can such fiscal wrong best be righted? 
Begin at once a transfer of taxes from improvements to 
land, so gradual that two old injustices will cease for 
every new one that is begun, until this untaxed value 
is made to bear at least its proportionate burden at the 
same rate with other things. 
In conclusion I wish to emphasise this basic fact: