The Dominion. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1912. LAND TAXATION.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1562, 4 October 1912, Page 4

The Dominion. FRIDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1912. LAND TAXATION.

■ 4 Some members of the Opposition hayo thought it good tactics to profess to believe that the Bill to amend the Valuation' of Land and that to increase the Graduated Land Tax will counteract each other. That is to say, that any increase in the Graduated Land Tax will be relieved by the Bill to altor the system of valuation. Yet strange to say both measures find supporters in the ranks of the anti-Reformers. The truth of the matter, no doubt, is that the Opposition feel it necessary to find fault with the Government and in their endeavour to discount the Reform legislation of their opponents which they realise is necessary, sometimes indulge in rather reckless assertions which land them in embarrassing situations. Mr. Forbes, for instance, last evening when discussing the Bill to increase the .Graduated Land Tax, became quite impassioned in his denunciation of the Government over this Bill. It was, he said, only a bit of bluff, but it would not in fact increase the tax. And what was his reply to the challenge of the Minister of Finance to vote against the Bill which he had just declared to be nothing more than a piece of bluff! "I will vote," he said, "for any increase in the taxation of large estates," and the House roared with laughter at his clumsy backdown,. Mr. Foubes will not dare to vote against the measure he has condemned; nor will many more of his friends on his side of the House. On tho Valuation of Land Amendment Bill, which by the way passed its second reading without division, Opposition members were, as they so often are of late, divided. This Bill is a perfectly fair ono, designed to remedy as far as possible certain existing injustices. The principle of land taxation on the unimproved value has bnen accepted as a sound one. It is conceded that the man who improves hie. land, o.nd by so doinp adds to the productivity and

wealth of the country, should not be penalised for his efforts ■which must benefit the whole community. Therefore the law provides that improvements shall escape taxation. The man who docs not improve his land in consequence finds himself carrying a heavier burden of taxation in proportion to the total Value of the land than is carried by tho man who does improve it. The purpose of the Bill now before Parliament is to make more clear what constitutes "improvements." This admittedly is not an easy task and there may be quite legitimate differences of opinion as to the details of the measure; but that amendment of the existing law in the direction of clearing up certain doubtful points is necessary is admitted by all who have given the subject any attention. The member for Christchurch North, Mn. Isitt, said it was the first of many Bills that the present Government was likely to bring clown to benefit the landowners. We trust that for once he will prove to be correct. There are benefits which can be conferred on the country landowner which will also benefit al 1 classes of the community, although Mr. Isitt possibly may not be aware of this, and so is inclined to sneer at the policy of ■ his opponents. It peems probable that the two important Bills affecting land taxation now before the House will find their way on to the Statute Book during the current session. Should this prove to be the case it will be a rather remarkable achievement for a Government which has only just assumed the reins of office, for both measures deal with intricate and difficult problems.