{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02220324508966695, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0008539709649871904, 'mean_word_length': 4.689320388349515, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Frank Knight's Proposal to End Distinctions among Factors of Production and His Objection to the Single Tax

Few topics in the area of public finance have been debated as hotly as the economic and social effects of taxes on land value. Until the late nineteenth century, most economists considered taxes on land value to be desirable. But in the aftermath of Henry George’s proposal of a “single tax,” well-known economists like John B. Clark, Herbert J. Davenport, Richard T. Ely, Frank H. Knight, and Edwin R. A. Seligman offered a multitude of reasons why it would not be desirable to concentrate taxes on land. Their arguments effectively removed the idea of concentrating taxes on land value from the agenda of economics. Today, only a few economists are aware of the debate, and even fewer consider taxes on land value to be an attractive alternative to taxes on labor and capital. This development is somewhat surprising, because there is a consensus in the local public finance literature that taxes on land value are nondistortive.1 Land value taxation could therefore be a desirable policy for municipalities that wish to increase economic activity within their