The Single Tax Question.

Feilding Star, Volume XVII, Issue 304, 30 June 1896, Page 2

The Single Tax Question.

At the request of several local resi- 1 dents, Mr E. Withy, of Auckland, ; i who is on a visit to this district, ad- j ! dressed a meeting in the Assembly Booms last evening, when there were present slightly over one hundred persons, including several ladies. Mr Jas. Wood was voted to the chair, and in introducing Mr Withy said that although the address was given under the auspices of the Feildisg Debating Society that did not pledge members to the principles of the single tax. Mr Withy, in his opening remarks, read the letter published in the Star from Mr Boots, saying that it was a misrepresentation of the intentions of Single Taxers, and he wished it to be contrasted with what he should say that evening. Single Taxers said that land ownership was wrong, as land being owned by an individual prevented production. Where the owner occupied the land he paid too much cash for the initial right, and was thereby prevented from spending his money in improvements and production. So long as land was held by speculators an artificial scarcity would be created, and the land which was used would be increased in cost to the producer. Under the Single Tax a man would have absolute security, but be would part with no cash for the right of usage, and no land would be cornered, as all would pay a ground rent. Tim would apply equally to town as well as country land. At present wealth was divided after production by so much to ground rent, so much to taxes and rates, and the balance to industry and the user of the land. From this it was deduced that some pay and others receive the ground rent. Mr Withy argued that a person paying for the right to occupy land paid to the wrong person by paying to the previous owner, whereas he should pay to the community. In 1891 the unimproved value of land in New Zealand was set down at seventy-five millions, the whole of that having been created by the increased population since the first settlement in the colony. The owners had done no service to those who paid the ground rent, and a divergence was here created where the land owners separated from the landless until they arrived at the extremes of the very wealthy and the pauper. When man was divorced from nature he could do very little for himself. A country land owner represented a man with nature to assist him, a landless man was divorced from nature, and a tenant was paying rent to some person so that he could enjoy nature. In producing secondary products — manu factoring — a town land owner has community benefits and a tenant pays an annual rental to the landlord for the equivalent of all benefits derived in towns. The facfc was that certain | men had to pay for sharing nature while others received those benefits without paying for them. He exI plained on a diagram how rents were ! paid by tenants, the greater portion of the production going to the owner. Men with a lesser ability were by this means reduced to pauperism. Ownership enabled men to get more than they produced, which led to speculation in land, thus denying the landless the right to produce ; it created an artificial security in land, was the cause of country districts being sparsely settled and towns being congested ; and it enabled the non-pro-ducer to share with the producer. The Creator gave the ground to all and did not give a title to any particular person. Man was a land animal and to deny him an equal right to land was to deny an equal right to liberty and life. Ownership of land prevented products from measuring wages and left competition to regulate »wages. This -was a wrong system. If none had to pay a sum of money to get hold of land, this would prevent the rich man from having the advantage, for a man would not work for anyone else for less than he could earn if producing for himself- The produce which he could make would be the price of bis labor. The proper condition of mankind was that each man plus nature and community benefits should pay io the community for the benefits he derived. The only way a man could discharge his duty to the community was by paying an annual rent, the revenue to be raised in this way to be used for general purposes. Paying an amouat at the beginning conld not discharge an obligation which a man owed to the community for the use of land. The Single Tax aimed at the proper condition, which could be attained by paying up to 20s in the £ on the ground rental value on the town land as well as the country, and to remit all taxes and looal rates which now exist. It would relieve all labor and labor products, improvements and imports, and allowed no .exemptions in respect of land, or . admitted graduated taxation. They did not propose to touch the present titles, but to leave them alone. Ground rent was a com« munity benefit and the Single Tax would give all a fair field and no favor. Tenants and wage-earners of to-day are partially slaves as they dare not open their mouths in the way he (Mr Withy) was doing in sympathy for the Single Tax. The Single Taxers desired to nationalise ground rent and not to make the State owner of the land. At the conclusion of the address questions were invited and In reply to Mr H. L. Sherwill Mr Withy said he was not a communist or socialist ; and he believed a man should be rewarded according to bis ability in production and the reward should not be to those who did not produce. In reply to a number of questions asked by Mr G. Wilks, Mr Withy said that the wealth amassed by such men as Baron Hirsch was nobbled from others who produced it. That the original owners in New Zealand bought their land from the State for which they paid thirteen millions, and this was practically handed back to them by being spent in making roads and bridges. He admitted interest on money. When there was a decrement that was a proof that too much was paid for the land and if the value went down the rent would go down. They estimated that 4 per cent would bring in sufficient to cover all charges and if that was not enough they would raise it by some other means. With reference to the cyanide process, it was the chemical force of nature em* ployed. The man who held shares in a mine was a land owner. If a farm did not pay a man to live on it it would not bo touched by the Single Tax. No man worked anywhere except on land. He would object to allowing the Chinese to swarm to New Zealand ; they should stop in their own laud. It was not the proposal of Single Taxers to allow anyone to go on ' another person's land* A man should not be taxed for improvements while land without improvements was allowed to go free. He would soonor trust the present Government to value

I the land than the landlords. In speak- | ing of poverty he referred to involuntary I poverty. "* - ,';■'. ; I In reply to Mr ;F. Owen, Mr Withy | said the country. lands totalled a greater j value than town' land and therefore it would pay a greater portion of the rent. In reply to Mr Franklin-Browne, Mr Withy said those who supported the Single Tax advocated, while socialists tried to prevent, freedom. In reply to Mr W. G. Haybittle, Mr Withy thought the Bcheme would be practicable in New Zealand and that it would improve their position, * On the motion of Mr J. C. Thompson, seconded by Mr J. Gould, a hearty vote thanks was accorded to Mr Withy for. > his address, and the usual complimrat to the chair terminated the meeting after Mr Withy had thanked the audience for tbe patient hearing accorded him. '■-^■ l --.,v^,,->v^