The Daily Telegraph TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1881.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3102, 7 June 1881, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph TUESDAY, JUNE 7, 1881.

Mr J. C. Richmond, in one of his recent addresses to the electors of Nelson, said he was puzzled to hear people on the part of the working classes objecting to the property t?x. He could well understand an objection coming from those who were over the £500 exemption line, but not from those who were belaw it. The property tax, indeed, is the only possible form of taxation that does not directly press upon the poor man, but which is levied as directly as possible upon the classes in the enjoyment of easy circumstances. It has been said, and with much truth, that the non-propertied classes contribute ; their fair share towards the revenue of the colony through the Customs duties, which they pay on nearly every article of daily consumption. This statement bae been laughed at, but Mr Richmond showed in his speech that there was more truth in it than the advocates of an income tax care to admit. Mr Richmond assumed for the sake of of round numbers that the population of New Zealand amounted to half a million. Of this number he also assumed that 50,000 people belonged to the propertied classes above the £500 exemption line, thus leaving 450,000 persons who paid no tax upon their property. The next step was to ascprtain the proportion each clasa paid to the Customs revenue, the total of which could be obtained from the quarte.'y returns for the year. The duties on tobacco and spirits would be about £500,000, wbicb he divided at a uniform rate, as a rich man could not smoke or drink much more than a poor man. Wines, bottled beer, and cigars yielded £80.000, which fell chiefly on the rich, and he divided it £70,000 to their side, and £10,000 to the other. Ad valorem duties fetched about £320,000, which he divided equally between the classes, holding that the higher duties on costly dress, household furniture, decorations, and other articles of luxury, &c, would make the one class contribute as much as the greater number of the other, and the lower duties on their consumption yielded. The remaining £400,000, which included tea and sugar, articles of universal and almost equal consumption in all classes, besides a multitude which the rich use more lavishly; he had divided £300,000 to the non-payers of property tax, £100,000 to the payers. He divided the stamps equally, as they included legacy and succession duties and bank composition, besides heavy stamps on large transactions. Property tax was wholly on one eide. Thus the estimate stood :— Payers of Property tax. Non-Payers. Spirits and tobacco .. £50,000 £450,000 Wine, cira>3, &c, .. 70,000 10.000 Ad val, duties .. 1G0.0C5 1C0.0C) Tea, and othei dude 3.. .. 100,000 800,000 Stamp duties .. .. 70,000 70,000 Property tax .. .. 250.CC)

£700,000 £990,000 Dividing the one amount by 50,000, the other by 450,000, we arrive at £14 as the average taxation per head of the payers of property tax, £2 4s per head as the average of non-payers. Omitting the property tax, the figures would be £9 and £2 4s. These figures, however rough, give a fairly true idea of the position. The burdensomeness of a tax depends not on its proportion to the total income, but to the surplus that remains after a man's family has been decently fed, clothed, and housed. In a family of five persons a surplus of £100 could bear a taxation of £14 per bead or (£7O) better than a surplus of £10 could bear a taxation of £2 4s (or £11). The above figures illustrate clearly the manner in which the property tax falls upon those best able to bear it; and this illustration should be kept in mind when politicians endeavor to show—but not to prove— that an income tax would be fairer than one upon property. Sir George Grey, however, advocates the imposition of a land tax as well as an income tax, forgetting that the best of all property is land which is now taxed as property. But if it is thought that land does not contribute sufficiently to the revenue, or does not pay in just proportion to perishable property, let it by all means be exempted from classification with property, and levy upon it a special tax of its own. We cannot see the jußtice of taxing the fluctuating incomes of persons of no property for the sake of a land tax 5 Jet us rather have a land and property tax, which would be about the very last description of taxation Sir George Grey would like to see imposed.