The Daily Telegraph. THURSDAY, AUGUST 28, 1884.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 4088, 28 August 1884, Page 2

The Daily Telegraph. THURSDAY, AUGUST 28, 1884.

It is difficult to understand the position of those who advocate a land tax, and who at : the same time oppose a property tax. Most : of those advocates are 'supposed .to be : Radicals, and' many of their opinions on other subjects are lively enough to entitle ■ them to the designation of being extreme men, but all the same they advocate a '. tax which would only' touch one class in {

the community, which, judging by previous experience, was not a success, and : which at best is but a clumsy substitute for the property tax. Wo are willing to admit that* land is entirely different to all other realised wealth, but that] land alone should bear burdens is neither reasonable nor fair. We have always opposed the imposition of a land tax, because it has either meant a tax which would only return half as much to the state as the present property tax docs, or it would have a bursting-tendency by being progressive. The first of these we oppose because the revenue at present will admit of no remissions, and if an amount, no matter how small, were to be taken off the burdens of the wealthy, it would have to be made up in some way or other from the earnings of the working classes, aud to that we decidedly object. To the second we object because wealth, increasing in a certain ratio, should be increasingly taxed in that ratio, but a progressive land tax has no such object in view. It simply says that the rate of taxation shall bo very much increased after a certain income is reached, and thus it tends to destroy thrift and self-reliance in a nation. The advocates of a progressive land-tax conveniently forget that a man's Avealth need not be reckoned by tho number of his acres, and this is Avhat is always overlooked in the exemptions attached to every proposal for a progressive land tax. The man avlio has 300 acres of land in close proximity to a town has a much more valuable asset and a much more taxable one than the man Avho has 3,000 acres one hundred miles away from a city. Tho former, under most plans advocated, Avould bo entirely exempt from taxation, Avhile the latter would feel what Avas meant by a progressive land tax, as his last thousand acres would have to pay a higher rate of taxation than his first. The man Avith the fewer acres has had his land enhanced in value enormously by no action or expenditure on his part, but due simply to the growth of population and the increased and increasing wants of a largo toAvn, and yet under such a scheme he would reap a benefit with which the State Avould not interfere. On the other hand, the other individnal, while probably gaining something from local expenditure, in a great measure tho increase in the value of his land would bo due to tho improvements ho himself effected and to the capital expended by him, and yet for those very improvements he would suffer under a progressive land tax. Nothing unfairer could be devised. A new proposal is uoav made to do away Avith the property tax, and in its steid substitute an income and land tax. Coupling the two last named together to our mind suggests that the two combined Avould be expected to bring in the amount at present received under the present property tax. In that case avc Avould at once point out that the experiment is more than a doubtful one. It is a dual Avay, and ex- , pensive accordingly, of doing Avhat is now done by a single tax, and therefore avo must prefer the simpler way. The advocates of an income tax pure and simple haA T e much on their side, but if we are to havo an income tax the first step that should be taken in connection with it is to abolish our Custom houses. Wo all know that the duties now levied on imported gooels press much more heaA'ily on the poorer classes than the rich, because of the necessaries of , life. The poor consume far more than the , rich in proportion to their incomes. Again, we sec no reason Avhy an income and land tax should both bo wanted. A laud tax Avould not take a penny piece from a man OAvning an acre of land in a city which is valued at so many hundred pounds per foot frontage, and is therefore unfair to those owning agricultural lands. True enough he Avould be reached on his income ; be is so reached now by the property tax, but how Avould it fare with the country settler owning a fewthousand acres of land ? Would he first - pay on his land, and then be called on aftei'Avards to pay his income tax ? If so, manifestly ho would bo paying more than i his share. An income tax apart from a i land tax, and Avith free ports, Avould be the s fairest of all taxes, with or Avithout an exemption, and if an exemption should bo 1 allowed it should certainly be fixed so low that tho whole community would have to > contribute according to their means. If i that were done—say fixing the exemption iat as low as £75 per year—the man Avhose income is £150 per year, and who would be taxed on £75, Avould not bo asked to pay so much as he now docs in tho way of Customs duties, Avhile the wealthy man Avould pay much more. An income tax is direct taxation, but the first step toAvards direct taxation is by cutting away tho indirect taxation noAV oppressing every one, and collected through tho Customs, but if Aye go in for direct taxation lot us not hamper it by saddling on to it an obnoxious land tax.