LIBERALS' TASK

Evening Post, Volume LXXXV, Issue 28, 3 February 1913, Page 7

LIBERALS' TASK

REGENERATION OF RURAL LIFE EMANCIPATION OF THE LAND LLOYD GEORGE AND LAND REFOKM. By Telegrtph.— Frees A»sOol*tit»n,— Copyright. LONDON, 2nd February. Mr. Lloyd George, speaking at the National Liberal Club, stated that the Liberals' foremost task in the near future would be the regeneration of rural life, and the emancipation of the land from the paralysing grip of a rusty, ef. fete, and unprofitable system. He eaid that the land ought to produce twofold its present output. The remedy for the present state of affairs was not to tax food, nor to crush the land by fresh taxation. ' Mr. Lloyd George denied the suggestion that the Government had conducted a clandestine enquiry into the pri« vate affairs of the landowners with a view to making attacks on his political opponents. He said that the Government merely filled in gaps in the incomplete reports of previous investigations. He declared that it was impossible to get unfettered evidence through" official enquiries. The results of the enquiry would soon be published, he said, and he forecasted startling results. He averred that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, were employed on the land under conditions which ought to make the great Empire hang its head in shame. The workers tvere not paid enough 1 to keep their wives and children above' a* state of eemi-starvation. The land was held under conditions which discouraged capital and brains from being invested in its development. Many rural workers were driven to the towns, thus depressing wages and creating unemployment. Mr. Lloyd George said that the remedy ought to cover both country and town labour. It was everyone's interest to see the land placed on a business footing. The Daily Mail interprets Mr Lloyd George s speech as an indication of differences with Mr. ABquith in respect of next session's programme. The Pall Mall Gazette states that Mr. Lloyd George's speech confirms the postponement of his pet land programme in favour of the Education Bill. i THE NEW LLOYD GEORGE POLICY TAXATION OP UNIMPROVED .VALUES. _ One of the great questions of the day in the Old Country— the greatest question m the minds of many public men "-is the question of land reform. The above cable message indicates the trend of opinion in the most Radical section of the British Cabinet. The Lloyd George Budgeti with its provision for the accurate valuation of all land in the King, dom, was essentially a land-reform Budget, and its author is eager, with the material collected by the valuation^ and the semi-private enquiry into the holding of land, to proceed with the work of definite reform on the principle of the taxation of unimproved land values. There is no doubt that the movement for land reform in the Old Country has been gaining ground rapidly in the last few years and numbers among its strongest supporters not only a powerful group of Liberal members in Parliament, and many wealthy outsiders, like the American millionaire, Mr. Joseph Fels ? but also the advanced party in the inner circle of the Ministry. VIEWS OF A PROMINENT ADVOCATE. Th© case for the new land policy is well put by Mr. Edward G. Hemmerde, K.C., M.P., one of its leading advocates, in the latest issue of the Pall Mall Magazine. He admits the impossibility of applying the Single Tax to the complex conditions of an old country like Great Britain. Very few of the land values grouji are Single-Taxers, and all realise the limited extent to which the theory of Single Tax is likely to receive practical application. "Our dhief object," he says, "is to alter the whole basis of our present rating system. . . The man who puts his land to the best possible use pays rates in proportion to his good work as a citizen, the man who deliberately keeps land out of use while the energies and expenditure of the community add to its value goes practically scot free. The man who builds a model millage* is mulcted in heavy rates j the man Who is content to own stricken and disease-ridden slums escapes with a burden light in proportion to their beastliness. The man who builds a great factory id the midst of a slum has the chagrin of seeing his neighbours gain from the presence of the factory an advantage which some day' they will be able to turn into hard cash through no exertion of their own."SOME INSTANCES. The land values group, to which Mr. Hemmerde belongs, consists of about 180 members 'of Parliament, who have urged the Prime Minister to levy, when the valuation is completed, a land values tax in lieu of the present unjustly burdensome rates. "It is impossible," says Mr. Hemmerde, "to give any accurate estimate of the land values of the United Kingdom. Some suggesU.they do not excoed £2,000,000,000. Others put them at four times this sum. I will hazard a guess that they will be found to be very little short of £6,000,000,000. A tax of Id in the £ on silch a value will produce £25,000,000. Tho amount raised in rates last year was roughly £70,000,000. If, therefore, we can raise £25,000,000 by a tax of Id in the £, we can relieve the ratepayer by more than onethird of his rates. Such a. tax in relief of rates is the only one which has any economic justification. Where land is put to good use, its burdens will be lightened by the extension of the area of taxation. Where the occupier and landowner are different persons, the relief to the ratepayer is obvious. NOT A PENNY RATE ON GROUND REJNTB. "Only the other day," cites Mr. Hemmerde as an example, "a case in the Law Court* disclosed the fact that one man drew £180,000 a year in ground rents from a Yorkshire town, and that the rates raised in the same town amounted to £175,000. Not one penny of the £175,000 rates ML pn the £180,000 ground rente. In the City of Liverpool three noble lords draw £350,000 in ground rents, with the same immunity from rates. Tho town of Cardiff is similarly situated. Then there as the case of a noble Duke who is receiving £1.000.000 a year in ground rents, but under the .present system of rates would bo contributing nothing, although the daily and hourly expenditure of ratepayers would be making the value of his ground rents. These cases could be multiplied indefinitely. Few politicians are blind to this flagrant scandal. Prominent Conservatives, like Mr. Balfour, Mr. F. E. Smith, Mr. Harmood Banner, and Mr. Wateon Rutherford, have- all approved of the principle of rating of land values. But a singular thing happened, comments Mr. Hemmerde. Any one must see that no rating of land values .can be instituted until a complete

valuation of the land, apart from improvementfl, is obtained, and yet none of tho Government's proposals has excited such violent opposition ns their proposal for securing such a valuation. ADVANTAGES CLAIMED. The following advantages are claimed for the new land policy in a tax on unimproved land values :— (1) By such a tax rates can be reduced without giving a bonus to the landlord. (2) By such a tax the enormous wealth of tho ground landlords of the big towns can be made to pay some share towards the town and country, which make the values. (3) By such a tax agricultural land will be greatly benefited, for, whereas more than one-third of the rates will bo taken off, the only countervailing burden will be a tax on land values which are exceedingly low. (4) By such a tax land in town and country will b& driven into use, industry will be stimulated, and employment increased. Ac a result of the new land policy the promoters hope to secure very great national benefits in the solution of the rural housing problem, the slum problem, nnd the problem of low wages and unemployment. They hope to secure the abolition of all penalties on industry by a substantial contribution from tho happy possessors of communally-created wealth by a method which frees industry and encourages production. As an example of the successful working of rating on unimproved land values, Mr. Hemmofde quotes the suburbs of Sydney in a statement by ninety Mayors and aldermen, who testify unanimously to its benefits— especially to those ratepayers whose use of land is mo6t effective and creditable to the municipality. THE OTHER SIDE. The other side to the question is given by Captain E. G. Pretyman, M.P., in the same issue. He criticises "the ambiguity" of single-tax proposals, and urges that "nothing can be more vague than their use of the expression 'unimproved value. ' At one time this expression is used to assure the landowner that all his improvements are to be exempted, and that tho tax will only fall upon the residuo of value after giving him full allowance for all his expenditure and that of his predecessors. But, on the other hand, when it becomes necessary to show that this form of taxation will produce a large revenue, 'unimproved value is taken to mean the full value of the land without the present buildings or improvements on it, if it could be used by adjoining occupiers whose land is equipped with other buildings and improvements. If this latter measure were adopted it would obviously confiscate two-thirds of tho owner's expenditure upon all tho agricultural land in the country and a large proportion of the expenditure on urban development." Captain Pretyman also wantß to know what is meant by "wealth created by the community," and submits that no answer to the question can ever be given. "Nor is it really possible in an old country to draw a dividing line between that part of the value of any land, which is due to the expenditure 6i successive owners, that part which ia due to the expenditure of other private interests, and the residue, if any, due to the growth of the community." Captain Pretyman admits "the crying need which exisits for rating reform." "I ask for no special privilege for incomes derived from land," he concludes, '.'but I do protest against their selection for special and penal taxation, and I take my stand upon the old, well-tried principle that national burdens should fall upon every citizen in proportion to his ability to pay, and without reference to tho particular form of property he happens to possess."