The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas et Prevalebit. MONDAY, AUGUST 20, 1883. A Land Tax.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume IV, Issue 1026, 20 August 1883, Page 2

The Ashburton Guardian. Magna Est Veritas et Prevalebit. MONDAY, AUGUST 20, 1883. A Land Tax.

The House of Representatives has spent a considerable. amount of time during the present session in discussing questions relating to the taxation of the colony. It might be less profitably employed. The people of the colony are beginning to take a very lively interest indeed in the subject of taxation; but they seem to view it from a different standpoint to that from which it is regarded by most of their rulers ; for whereas the latter appear to consider that the chief things to be determined are the proper mode and incidence of taxation, the former consider that they are required to pay a great deal too much in the way of taxation, and that if more economy were exercised in the administration of public affairs the taxation could be materially lightened. The latest debate in the House bn this subject took place last Thursday, when Mr Smith, the member for Waipawa, moved a resolution to the effect that it was necessary “ to impose a land tax on all land in the colony.” The arguments used in support of the resolution by Mr Smith and Sir George Grey—-

vyho came out in great force on the occasion—were of a singular character. The eloquence of these gentlemen was directed to exposing the evils of land monopoly and the unfairness of permitting landowners to benefit from the construction of railways made with public money through their properties without their being required to contribute at least a part of the “ unearned increment ” ,to the State. Few persons, now-a-days, will be found to argue that land monopoly is a good thing for the country; and we may, without hesitation, admit that when we began to carry our Public Works scheme into effect we might fairly have made some kind of bargain with the landowners, great and small, whose properties were likely to be improved in value by the formation of railway lines through them or in their immediate neighborhood, although, while making this admission, we may perceive the injustice which would be done by imposing a special tax upon persons who had bought lands at the enhanced prices given to them by this means. We fail to see, however, in what way an ordinary Land Tax would operate to break up overgrown estates, especially as Mr Smith and Sir George Grey propose to abolish the Property Tax, and to replace it with a Land Tax as a substitute. We may condemn the injustice, and yet admit the logic, of those who propose class taxation in the shape of a progressive Land Tax, and even the hot-headed advocates of bursting-up taxes andsimilarcommunistic measures, might, with some show of reason, assert that whether their projects were good or bad in themselves, they were calculated to effect the particular end in view, whatever their collateral effects might be; but to repeal the Property Tax and to impose an all round Land Tax in its room appears to us to be the feeblest of all projects for abolishing land monopoly and getting at the unearned increment arising from railway construction. In like planner, while Sir George Grey’s diatribes against the excessive taxation of the country will meet with many a responsive echo, it is impossible for any ordinary mind to deduce from them, as a necessary consequence, that a Land Tax ought to be imposed upon the country. The country did enjoy a Land Tax during Sir George Grey’s brief reign ; and it didn’t like it. The tax irritated everybody concerned, while it* failed to produce the revenue expected. The fact is, there is a class of theorists who believe that the land will bear any quantity of taxation. One of these enthusiasts in a well-known work, recently published, calmly propounds the view that the whole of the taxation should be placed upon the land ; and he innocently imagines that people would be found to carry on farming upon such terms. Now, a Land Tax is a perfectly legitimate tax in itself; but whether such a tax ought to be imposed or not must depend upon the particular circumstances of each case. Farmers in New Zealand, in addition to their contributions to the general taxation, do already pay a good deal of special taxation in the shape of local rates. These local rates, too, are increasing year by year. The policy of the General Government is to compel each district to defray the cost of administering its local affairs out of local rates. To augment these growing burdens by a land tax would be extreme injustice. The'common sense of the House fortunately rejected Mr Smith’s motion, for which, we observe, the member for Wakanui voted. The Wakanui farmers will doubtless appre ciate the action of their representative.-