A very strong argument in favor of the single tax is that land cannot
be hidden from the tax assessor, as can stocks, bonds, jewels, and
other forms of personal property. A single tax on land would,
therefore, be relatively easy to apply.

A tax on the location and fertility value of land would not discourage
industry. Location value is largely or entirely due to community
growth, rather than to the efforts of the individual land-owner.
Fertility, of course, is largely a natural endowment, and as such
cannot be destroyed by a tax. The land would continue to have all of
its location value, and probably much of its fertility value, whether
or not the owner were taxed.

Another argument is that a single tax on land would eliminate taxes on
live stock, buildings, and all other forms of property except land,
and that this would encourage the development of the forms of property
so exempted. This would stimulate business.

It has also been said that the single tax would force into productive
use land which is now being held for speculative purposes. It is
claimed that many city tracts remain idle because the owners are
holding them in the hope of getting a higher price in the future.
According to the single taxer, a heavy tax would offset this hope of
gain, and would force speculators either to put the land to a
productive use, or to sell it to someone who would so employ it.

A last important argument in favor of the single tax is that it might
force into productive work certain capable individuals who are now
supported in idleness by land rents. Professor Carver has pointed out
that if the single tax deprived such persons of their incomes, they