NOTICE TO CORRESPONDENTS. The Akaroa Mail. FRIDAY, MAY 21.

Akaroa Mail and Banks Peninsula Advertiser, Volume 4, Issue 396, 21 May 1880, Page 2

NOTICE TO CORRESPONDENTS.

The Akaroa Mail. FRIDAY, MAY 21.

R. Straw.—Your communication is unavoidably held over.

We promised in our last issue to devote some attention to Mr Montgomery's remarks on the present property tax and the subject generally, and purpose now redeeming that promise. We may premise, that like Mr Montgomery, we do not object to a property tax as such. On the contrary, it is a form of taxation which we have always advocated as being a necessary ingredient in any equitable adjustment of the burdens to be borne'by the people. To levy the whole or nearly the whole of these contribu tions by means of Customs duties means, practically speaking, a poll-tax. It means that every man, woman and child shall contribute as nearly as possible the same aononnt, and that a man's contribntions should increase, not with his means to pa)-, but rather in an inverse ratio—viz., with the number of his family. We hold, therefore, that a property tax, in itself, is- eminently jn«t. It may then, perhaps, be asked, why object to this one ? Our answer is plain. We object to the present oaie, first, because it is undiscriminating. To use Mr Montgomery's words, ifc will have the effect of " handicapping colonial industry." The company or firm, for instance, who go 'to a laiyaje expense in establishing some new industry, in erecting costly machinery, whether for engineering or manufacturing purposes, have nt once to .pay an annyal tax on this outlay, although it man probably be years before any remunerative returns will accrue to them. Now., we do not need to throw any obstacles in the way of enterprises that will assist indeveloping our latent resources. When these enterprises have proved successful, it ■will be quite time enough to levy tribute upon them. This was what was proposed by the Joint Stock Company's Bill of Sir George Grey's Government, By that bill the dividends, and not the capital stock of companies, was subjected to taxation. The unsuccessful ones, therefore, and those whose success was as yet only problematical .escaped altogether, while those undertakings which had proved themselves successes, would have had to contribute in proportion to their success.

A fatal objection to the present measure is to be found in the vexatious and inquisitorial nature of its provisions relating to personal property. There is no doubt that, to make a return conformable to the act, every article in a. man's possession, every shilling owingto or by him must be given an account of. Now, this is objectionable on various grounds. For one thing, it will be a grievous burden on the timid and conscientious. The particulars exacted are so minute, the declarations to be signed so sweeping, and the penalties so severe that we can well imagine persons of the character we have mentioned suffering acutely in their endeavors to fulfil a disagreeable duty. J3ut while the meshes of the Act are sufficiently fine to catch, and cause considerable inconvenience to persons who are troubled with scruples, they are wide enough to allow of the escape of probably the greater number, viz., those who are not so particular. These statements of personal property are to be sent away to an official who can obviously have no possible means of checking them. So that any man who has no scruple about making a false statement can evade the tax to any extent he chooses.

The property which should be sought out, and got at by a judiciously levied tax, is not the kit of tools of the carpenter, or the steam engine of the manufacturer, it is not even the silk dress or velvet-covered couch of the wife of the millionaire. The former class of goods are engaged in producing wealth, in creating means to pay wages—in other words, to Iced and dolhe the people. The hitler arc constantly weaving out, and each time they need renewal can be got at through the Customs. No— what is required is im impost that will reach the capitalist pure and simple, and this irrespective of amount. .Now, realised wealth is always invested in one ot a few various forms. For instance, land, moneys advanced by way of morfgagc. or

bill of sale on landed or other property, shares in commercial companies. No. scheme of taxation is perfect, but we believe that a tax on all such properly as requires registration, and which can only be transferred by means of a registered document, would embrace everything which is fair matter for taxation, and be free from the objectionable features of the present measure. We are aware that an objection may be made that such an impost is a tax on thrift, and to a certain extent this is true, but on near examination the objection vanishes. Let us consider an example. A. and 13. each earn the same income. A. saves £100 a year. B. spends all his money as he receives it. Supposing the former to invest his £100, he would, under such a system as we have sketched out, have to pay, say 8s 4d a year on it. B. escapes this, but having squandered his money on luxuries, such as drink, cigars, &c, he will have contributed fully £50 to the coffers of the State. So he does not escape after all—not much.

We consider it would be highly advisable for the inhabitants of the peninsula to hold a public meeting, and embody their opinions on the tax as it stands in the form of a petition to the Legislature. But they should be careful to state the nature of their objections, and not confine themselves to inveighing against a property tax as such. The latter course would probably only be playing into the hands of the anti-Liberal party. We have now then a suspicion of the sincerity of the Government in this matter, and think it not unlikely that the details of the measure now purposely made so unpalatable in order that a howl of execration might be raised, which would have the effect of causing the whole tax to be swept away—a consummation, by the party representing money as against men, most devotedly to be wished.