ANTI-SINGLE TAX FALLACIES.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1222, 2 September 1911, Page 14

ANTI-SINGLE TAX FALLACIES.

Sir,—l am away from Wellington and my attention has just been called to Jlr. Will B. Jlntheson's letter headed "i'ingle Tax Fallacies." In reply I would state: (1) That a tax on land values is not "a class tax, paid only by landholders." Tlio full amount of the single tax—more, indeed, because of land speculation and land monopoly—is now. paid every year by tho labour and capital of New Zealand. And it is now truly "a class tax," being paid to tho land holding class for tlieir particular use and benefit. Besides this land tax paid to a class the labour and capital of New Zealand have to pay all our other rates and taxes os well. Under tho single tax, all other rates and taxes would be abolished—-a great relief to tho labour and capital of New Zealand, both ill town and country; in fact, especially in tho country districts where land values are comparatively low. Tho landholders now collect' the land values of New Zealand—tho land values produced by, and rightly belonging t'o, tho people as a whole—and keep those land values for themselves. Under the single tax they would si ill collect these land values belonging to the public; but, instead of being allowed to keep them for themselves they would have to "hand them over to the public. They would be, not taxpayers, but tax-collectors; and, as Jlr. 11. 11. Asquitli, the British Prime Minister, recently stated, the tax, though a tax iu form, is not really a tax. It takes frori no man any part of' his earnings. It is simply a " -stale rent charge on tho land, taking for the community the land values produced by tho community. (2) .Mr. Jlatlicsen denies that there is land monopoly in New Zealand. Well, according to return 817 A, 1207 (1 only wish we had it right up to date,' but the proportions aro much the samo to-dnv) less than 3000 landholders moil opolised more than 33 millions of tho 100 millions of unimproved land values in New Zealand. The last line of Table ■1 of that return shows four landholders monopolising an unimproved land value of e£l.01G,02!); while -18,117 landholders ■held little more than twice that amount, or ,£2,031,721 between them! And tho last three lines of tho table show 111 landholders monopolising between them an unimproved value of i'!USI ,G7G, or nearly one-tenth of the land values of the Dominion; while the first tlireo lines show 83,311 landholders with an uniin-pj-oved value of only .£3,10!),105 between them! Jlr. Jlatheson may call this what ho likes. I call it land monopoly. (3) The way to prevent "holders ol town lands crowding buildings on every possible square yard" is to havo sensible up-to-date bylaws. Without such by-laws, crowding will take placo until we ■ get something like tho full jingle tex. The full single tax would make it impossible. In G:sIxirne in February last, before the rating on unimproved values went into effect we found seven houses on a quarteracre section. Landlord, greed, and bad bylaws, wero tho causes.—l am, etc., ARTHUR WITHY. Auckland, August 28, 1911.