It is easy to see what could have been done; to determine what should now be done is far more difficult.  To try to regain for the public the unearned increments of past years would be an injustice to those who have purchased lands recently, at the increased prices, and even, perhaps, to those who have benefited by the increasing values, since they have regarded the increase as theirs and adjusted their expenditures to this added income.  The best that could be done would be to take an inventory of all land values now, and provide for a recurrent reappraisal; then to take all, or a large percentage, of the increased value from now on.  It would, indeed, be dangerous to attempt to take it all, on account of the extreme difficulty of drawing the line between earned and unearned increments; even the most painstaking and impartial decisions would be sometimes unjust.  But to take half or two thirds of what should be deemed “unearned” would be practicable.  Several modern States now take from ten to fifty per cent; and the percentage taken will doubtless increase.  The objections to such a course are twofold.  In the first place, it is pointed out that if the unearned increment of value is appropriated by the State, the State should recoup landowners for all undeserved decrements of value; it is not fair to take away the possibility of gain and leave the possibility of loss.  So long, however, as our population grows, the State could afford to make good the comparatively few cases of decreased value and yet get a big income.  The other objection is that the hope of winning the increased land values has been a great and needed incentive to the development of the country, and a legitimate compensation for the hardships of pioneering.  But while this is true of the earlier days, it applies less and less to present conditions, and is hardly at all applicable to the profits made in city lands.  On the whole, there seems little objection to the appropriation by the State henceforth of the unearned increments of land value.  But the days of enormous increments are passing, and land will presently reach a comparatively stable value.  So that this method of preventing inflated fortunes must be counted, on the whole except for new and rapidly growing communities a lost opportunity. [Footnote:  H. J. Davenport, State and Local Taxation, pp. 294-303.  F. C. Howe, European Cities at Work, pp. 189-207.  Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 22, p. 83; vol. 25, p. 682; vol. 27, p. 539.  Political Science Quarterly, vol. 27, p. 586.  National Municipal Review, vol. 3, p. 354.  F. W. Taussig, Principles of Economics, chap. 44, sec. 5.]