THE SINGLE TAX QUESTION-A BEPLY TO MR ROOTS.

Feilding Star, Volume XVIII, Issue 10, 11 July 1896, Page 2

THE SINGLE TAX QUESTION -A BEPLY TO MR ROOTS.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, — With your permission I should like to reply to Mr J. B. Boots' letter, in which he refers to Mr Edward Withy and the wrong which he states would be inflicted on the farmers if the unearned increment was acquired by the State in substitution for our present methods of taxation. la 1892 ? return was laid before Parliament (B-20A) giving the result of the general assessment of 1891. At that time there were 91,501 land owners in New Zealand, the total unimproved valuo of their holdings being £54,427,175. The annual unearned increment or rental value of this sum amounts to (at 5 per cent) £2,721,858. The Single Tax in New Zealand would thus not only enable us to abolish every form of the Custom House, but, in addition, to create a sinking fund which would in less than forty years pay off our debt. This could be done without requiring either the town or country or land users to pay a penny more in taxation

than they are now paying, and in the majority of cases much less. Land users have paid rent since the time of Adam, and will continue to pay it, The Single Taxers, however, recognising fundamental principles, prove that it should be paid to the State instead of " Lord John and His Grace." The report under consideration states, " About half the landowners — namely, 45,192 have land of an unimproved value of less than .£IOO. We can say with certainty, therefore, that less than £1 and not more than £5 would be the portion which half the landowners ef the colony would each contribute annually nnder the Single Tax as their share of the total of £2,721,358. They would be relieved of all other forms of taxation, local rates included. These small farmers which Mr Roots refers to as the " classes," aod which he seems anxious to protect from spoliation, as heads of families, in common with the other working classes, are now paying from £10 to £40 a year through the Custom House. There are 76,899 owners each with an unimproved value of less than £'500, their total nnimproved value being £8,621,360. Accordingly, by the method of taxation proposed by Mr Withy, 76,899 owners, out of a grand total of 91,/jOI owners, would pay in many instances less than £1 and in no case more than £25 annually ; 6,922 owners have unimproved values varvinp from £500 to £1,000, their combined unimproved value being £4,794,580. This section of owners would each pay not less than £25 annually, and in no case more than £50. There are 7,496 owners with unimproved values varying from £1,000 to £10,000 ; 684 owners have each an unimproved value of £10,000 and upwards, tneir total value being £21,802,898. These figures are significant, proving clearly who would pay the Single Tax. It is evident that fully 80 per cent, of the farmers and users of land generally would pay less in taxation than they are now paying. Under present circumstances a large farmer with, say, an unimproved value of £2500 and a family of six is really a poor man, owing to the difficulty which he must find, consequent on land monopoly in obtaining employment for and placing his children in life. Ido not wish to be uncharitable or to attribute motives, but whether Mr Boots knows it or not, he is writing in the interest of the 684 owners whose total unimproved value is £21,---802,898, and he is opposing the wellbeing of about 99 per cent of the remainder. The majority of the large estates in New Zealand were oripinally acquired by chicanery, a few plugs of tobacco or a bundle of old muskets. But, whatever may have been given for the land, either to the Government or Native, that ever increasing majority, the landless class, never received one penny of the purchase money. This, sir, is an unfinished sketch of the fiscal aspect of the Single Tax. The ethical aspect is still stronger, which I regret we cannot at present discuss. Mr Boots tells us the farmers are a " long-suffering class," but if the foregoing figures prove anything, they have suffered from the want of the Single Tax, and the history of the world proves it. Mr Boots overlooks the following facts — (1) That under the Single Tax 80 per cent of the freeholders would pay less in taxation than they pay now ; (2) All leaseholders would pay less in taxation than they now pay ; (3) The Single Tax imposes no additional burden on land, for if the user pays rent to the State he cannot pay it to the individual landlord — he must pay rent in any case or enjoy a monopoly ; (4) The tax falls upon the unimproved value of both town and country lands ; it is therefore not a land area tax, but a land valne tax. Under these circumstances it is difficult to imagine why Mr Boots should refer to us as " confiscators." The reference to Mr Withy as an agitator is uncalled for, for if any section of the landowners of the colony is to lose by the Single Tax it is the infinitesimal, though all powerful, section to which Mr Withy belongs. Yours etc., T.S. Wellington, 10th July, 1896. P.S.— The Single Tax is Hot land nationalisation. It sets no limit either to the area or value of a person's holding. Persons may nell or buy, increase or decrease, their holdings as they please, and as they do now, without any meddling by the State.— T,S.