RATING ON IMPROVED VALUE. RATING ON IMPROVED VALUE.

Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 32, 6 August 1895, Page 2

RATING ON IMPROVED VALUE. RATING ON IMPROVED VALUE.

to the editor of the star. Sir, —Did I not know that your correspondent, Mr Wilks, was an educated man, I should take him for some political Rip Van Winkle, just awakened from a twenty years' sleep, and, while rubbing the dust from his eyes, sleepily exclaiming, "Unimproved value ! There is no such thing." Twenty years ago, "What ia the unimproved value of land, or is there such a thing ?" might have been open for discussion, but the subject haß been threshed out so thoroughly of late years, and is entering so largely into the " practical politics " of the day in this aud other countries, that it is a mere juggling with a definition to assert there is no such thing. I venture to say that very few of the electors of the colony are ignorant of the meaning of the term. The one hundred acres in bush near Colyton is worth more than it was twenty years ago owing to the expenditure of public money and the enterprise of surrounding settlers. Now, sir, if 1 do a day's work I expect to get the wages for it, if I build a house I expect to enjoy it, if I improve a piece of land I expect to reap the benefit, and that the extra value given by my labor or expenditure will belong to me, and all men allow the justice of my claim in these cases. Roughly speaking, the " improved value" of land is that part of the value arising from the labor of present or former owners or occupiers. The " unimproved valuo " is that arising from the expenditure of public money, and from the presence and labor of the whole of the population. Clearly the "improved value" belongs to the man who gave it, aud as clearly it is a just thing to put the rates on the " unimproved value," as this last is due to the whole of the population, and without them would not be in existence. Mr Wilk's example of A.B.C.D. is of no value as it is a suppositious case. I could suppose a dozen better cases to support my view, but I will give an actual case, showing that the present law does bear hardly on the poor. Near Colyton there is a large block of land which used to belong to a rich man, when he had it all the improvements consisted of a little fencing, a wool shed, and sheep yards. Not long ago this property was cut up and sold to working settlers, who cannot be described as anything but poor men. At the present time there are half-a-dozen, or more, settlers' houses on this same property, all their subdivision fencing, gardens, farm buildings, and plantations. Naturally the rates have increased very considerably, by the poor man's improvements, while large blocks still held by rich men, with but scanty improvements, escape with only light rates. Thus, the poorer men are taxed more in proportion than the rich. In the case of the very poor settler his income arises partly from his farm, and partly from the wages he earns working for others. I showed in my former letter that rating on unimproved value would largely in- . crease the money spent in employing labor. Therefore, the poor man's income from day wages would increase, and he would in return only pay a small percentage of the other part of his income. Thanks to our land laws past ' and present, any land that is within the reach of a poor man is generally of 1 a poor quality, or at least is so far from everywhere that the unimproved value 1 is but small, and the rates in consequence 1 only light. But, sir, I do not support this proposed law because I think it will in any sense despoil the rich and let the ' poor lgo free. I support it because I \ believe it to be a just law, and one that r will adjust the burden of taxation equitably, and encourage industry, thrift, | and improvements of all kinds. * I am, etc., r T. West. 5 Colyton, August 3rd, 1895.