128 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY
The discussion of the general property tax is admirable. The whole trend of the book is toward "faculty" as the basis of taxation. The general property tax was wholly condemned, because product has today superseded property as an index of faculty. Henry George's single tax theory is condemned for not going far enough. "Not the labor theory but the social utility theory is the real defense of private property," but if we accept the single-taxers' premises we are driven by logic from their camp into that of the socialists. The various argu- ments for the inheritance tax the extension-of-escheat theory, the diffusion-of-wealth theory, the cost-of-service and price-of-privilege theories are all presented only to be condemned, and finally the tax is justified upon the basis of relation to faculty.
The most valuable contribution of the book to the theory of taxa- tion is the portion concerning corporations, covering nearly one-third of its pages. In briefest summary the conclusions reached are as fol- lows : Corporations should be taxed separately and differently from individuals ; locally only on real estate ; for state purposes on earnings or on capital and loans. As to the latter, residence of share or bond- holder should be immaterial ; there should be no distinctions between foreign and domestic corporations. Property beyond the state should be exempt ; capital stock and property both should not be taxed ; where either of these is taxed the shareholder should be exempt, and so too the bondholder when loans are taxed. An additional tax should be levied on corporations which have through natural, legal or economic forces become monopolistic enterprises.
Those who have had experience not only in paying but in spread- ing special assessments will not fully agree with Professor Seligman, either in his classification or his commendation of this product of the taxing power. Special assessments are denied the quality of taxes because their product is measurable, because they are an equivalent for value received rather than proportional to faculty, and because they are not regularly recurrent. But these distinctions become somewhat indistinct as one examines the contrasts. It is notorious that the meas- urability of such assessments is largely theoretic and hypothetical and that the value received by the general public cannot any more be set off clearly from that of the persons assessed than can the so-called indirect benefits from the direct. The distinction as to recurrence is largely formal ; substitute larger periods for years and it substantially disappears. Again, within the range of abutting owners the assess-
