CORRESPONDENCE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1287, 13 July 1886, Page 3

CORRESPONDENCE.

We do not hold ourselves responsible for the opinions expressed by our correspondents.

TO THB EDITOR. Sir, —“ Lacidar" charged me in his first letter with ignorance ; in his second he insinuates that I have set np for an authority on this important subject, and that lam childish. If these arguments prove anything it is that Ladder's case is in his own opinion a weak one. I have a heavier charge to bring against Lacidar than either of the above, namely, “ quibbling. ” I am surprised Jlhat he should occupy your valuable space with such lubbish as is contained iu the first part < f h'B last letter ; he tries to make out that X said land pays taxes. He says, “I might as well say land lays eggs,” I submit, sir, this is a mere quibble. Lind produces eggs, but it does not lay eggs. His answer to my question is another quibble. In his first 3et - er ha made a statement to the effect that “every ass must bear his share of the burden of the community in which he lives.” Now, as asses only live in communities in their wild state, where they have no burdens to carry, he evidently meant man. Keeping up the figure, I asked him if every ass bears his own burden what bears the ass 1 and his reply is, “ the ass has no parallel in man,” Having disposed of the head and the tail of your correspondent's letter, we come now to the body. Here be states, “ There are two sourcrs of wealth : land, or material, and labor, both of which eeing absolutely necessary to the production of wealth must have distinct, separate, and real values in themselves.” I join Isane with him here. If two things are absolutely necessary one to the other they can have no distinct, separate, aud real values in themselves. This is true in a remarkable degree of land and labor Land without labor has no value, and labor cannot exist without land.

Your correspondent goes on to say—- “ To tax the one irrespective of the other would be lo make the one rich and the other poor.” I have to ask Lacidar to prove that statement. Let him point out a tax that would have that effect.

What I stated at first was, that land ultimately bora all taxation. I mean by that that the taxes are a burden on the land, and an increase of the taxes means a decrease In the valne of land, and vice versa. Of coarse this is only true where land is of some value. I maintain that the taxes must be got out of the land ; the difference between the present system and one tax on land would be that those persons who hold land for speculative or other useless purposes would have to pay more, while the industrious farmer would be eased from a portion of the load. If It be true that land bears all text's the more land there is on which to place the burden the lighter will it be.— I am, e'c , Radical