The Feilding Star. TUESDAY, SEPT. 18, 1888. An Editor in a Passion

Feilding Star, Volume X, Issue 43, 18 September 1888, Page 2

The Feilding Star. TUESDAY, SEPT. 18, 1888. An Editor in a Passion

We ventured, in a recent issue, to criticise some information given to the world by the Rangitikei Advocate, on the subject of the taxation of land in England. The editor of that interesting paper, after nursing his wrath 1 for several days, has at length relieved his feelings by a shower of vituperation, in an article which we commend to our readers as a specimen of the journalistic ability of Marton. " Feeble, intermittent twinkler," " triweekly twinkler," " insect- brained literature (!), " " silly remarks." " length of ears," — these are a few among the flowers of Billingsgate, which he hurls at our devoted head. Here is a " nice derangement of epitaphs !" Our friend seems to have lost his temper ; but he should re- 1 member that abuse is not argument ; that, on the contrary, it may be laid down as a general principle that the more forcible the abuse the feebler the argument. Let us see bow the matter stands between us. The Advocate stated that "land at Home could Lardly be said to be taxed at ail for Imperial purposes ; it escaped its fair share of the nations burdens." We replied by showing that income derived from land is assessed for in-come-tax in precisely the some way as that derived from any other source ; that landowners pay every tax paid by owners of other kinds of property, in addition to a special tax imposed ou land, and to the cost of the relief of the poor, which is borne entirely by real property ! How does our contemporary answer these criticisms ? He cannot deny the fact, which he had apparently forgotten, that landowners pay income-tax ; but he says : " The amount of income-tax from land under schedule A does not amount to more than £5,000,000 in all, a mere nothing in the fabulous totals from which it comes." Does he mean that there is a different rate of income-tax for real and for personal property ? or does he think that landowners contrive in some mysterious way to evade the tax? In either case we can assure our readers that he is entirely mistaken. The income-tax is exactly the same on all kinds of property, and there is no possible way of evading it. But, the Advocate says, "our reference to the income-tax is unfortunate, for it exhibits our absolute ignorance of the fundamental principles of taxation, in assuming that the incidence of the tax is fair when it falls equally i upon incomes derived from land, and incomes derived from professions." When did we ever " assume" anything of the kind ? It is certainly an opeD question whether professional incomes should not be exempted to a certain extent, but we never mentioned professional incomes at all. What we said was that income derived from land was assessed in the same way as that derived from funded property. So it is ; and, therefore, we say that land is taxed for Imperial purposes just like any other property. Our contemporary is very severe on us for quoting the relief of the poor as one of the burdens on land, because, he says, that is a matter of local taxation. That is the very reason why we mentioned it ; it io a tax imposed for a purpose which is distinctly of a national character ; but which is levied by means of local rates, and which, therefore, falls only on real property. But, says the Advocate, a large proportion of the poor rate? is paid by railway companies. Certainly it is ; but why ? Simply because they are landowners. It is the land taken for railways which is assessed for the poor rate ; companies established for other purposes, who are not landowners, pay nothing towards it, however large their profits may be, except the assessment on their offices and premises. Our contemporary quotes Mr Laing, M.P., to the effect that half the poor rates are paid by the railways. With all due deference, we do not believe that Mr Laing ever said anything of the sort; but, if he did, so much the worse for Mr Laing. The total value of property assessed for poor rate in 1880 was £191,000,000. of which railways were valued at £24,500,000, as against £148,250,000 for houses and lands— a little more than oneeighth of the total amount, instead of one-half ; and there has been no material extension of railways since that year. We stated that the amount spent in the relief of the poor was about £8,350,000. The Advocate makes merry over tnia as a blunder, putting the sum at £11,722,734. If lie was right, our argument would be, strengthened; but, as a matter of fact, our figures are perfectly correct. The exact sum spent in England and '

! Wales for that purpose was £8,387,789 in 1886. Our friend has fallen into the mistake : very natural in one whose knowledge of the subject is , oiiiy derived from a hasty reference t > I such publications as the Financial ' Reform Almanac, of taking the total sum yielded by the poor rate. He is evideutly not aware that, of this : amount, only about two-thirds are spent in the actual relief of the poor, : the remainder going to meet other payments which have been charged to i the poor rate from time to time by Act of Parliament. In conclusion, we will give an illustration in support of our argument. — If a man has an t income of £10,000 a year derived | from investments m the funds, and \ chooses, as many people do, to live in j chambers in London, he does not ; contribute one sixpence towards the ! relief of the poor. A fundholder, in j that position, pays income-tax only. : A. man with a similar income derived ■ from land pays the same income-tax, j plus land-tax, plus poor rates. There- j fore, we say land does bear its fair i share, and more than its fair share, I of the nations burdens. We have i;o intention of continuing this discussion, which has no practical interest for most of our readers. We thought it right, however, to correct a misstatement, which is too frequently made, and which is likely to convey very false impressions to those who are not acquainted with the pubject. Our contemporary naturally does not like to admit his mistake ; but the fury with which he attacks us is sufficient evidence that he is conscious of it.