THE LAND BILL.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXV, Issue 2107, 15 June 1907, Page 3

THE LAND BILL.

ATTITUDE OF SINGLE TAXERS

A manifesto issued by the Wellington Single Tax League sets out its attitude on the Land Bill in the following terms: — . . Whereas certain Opposition speakers, including the-Leader of the Opposition, have repeatedly declared that the Land Bill now before the country is based on Henry George’s principles, and whereas the same assertion is contained in a pamphlet now being circulated, bearing the imErimatur of the Fanners’ Union, we ereby reaffirm the principles for which this league exists, and in the light of these, we define our attitude towards the Land Bill: I. We heartily sympathise with the pbject sought by Mr. McNab, for we regard land monopoly as the greatest curse of modern society. But while we are in accord with the proposal to reserve the remaining Crown lands as endowments for public purposes, and, although we regard the introduction of the. Bill as satisfactory, inasmuch as it amounts to a tacit admission that the State pur- ■ chase of land iS a failure, we declare our inability to accept the limitation proposals: ~ . (a) Because, eveu-coucedmg their applicability to rural land, they cannot be applied to town land,-and we insist that no'measure can be satisfactory that does not deal with land monopoly in towns. In view of the prevailing excessive rents, and in face of.the fact that speculators ait growing rich by dealing in town property, we hold that it is absurd to talk of land monopoly, as if it existed onlv in country districts. • (b) Because limitation can be secured easily and permanently by increasing the land tax, which is applicable to town and country .alike. We oppose both exemptions and graduations under the land tax for the reason that the unearned increment belongs to the people, and should be taken for the people. Both ? xen U?" tions and graduations facilitate evasions of the law. and both constantly tend to defeat the land tax as a 10 (c)‘ l Becau 0 se, Ur no'matter how great the increase of the land tax, the cost of collection would remain the same as at present. Even, the abolition exemptions would not imply an y. in ” crease in the cost of collection, since the taxpayers have now to bear the cost of valuing the exempted land(d) Because owing to the giovtli and progress of the colony, land is becoming too dearto be 'yitliin_yeach of. anyone but the man with capital, and the increase of the land tax, by compelling the subdivision of estates would tend to bring land within reach of the poorer classes. 11. This league reiterates its opposition to the State purchase of land, either for settlement or for workers homes, because — . . (a) The taxpayers should not be called upon t<T pay for the value tliej themselves have created. (b) The purchase of estates by the Government opens the door to wirepulling and intrigue, and almost invariably results in the State being called upon to pay extortionate Pr (c) S The purchase of estates lias a tendency to inflate the value of adjoining land to a speculative point. 3 (d) Land must ultimately become too dear to enable the Stato to coutin(")e ’Fhelystm’ can d never solve the land Question, in support of which »e would Point out that, after twelve years trhdof it, land monopoly is now more prevalent than ever. 11l We reiterate our unalterabh adhesion to the great principle of free trade,.as Leing the logical corollary of land-value taxation. Me.i fuse to countenance protection, Mother presented .under the alms ot “preference” or otherwise, . . declare our conviction that Having regard to the prevailing high cost ot living and the constant, tendency of wages to decline, the most . urgent social reform is a substantial increase . ri the land tax and the abolition or Customs duties on sugar, jausins, potatoes, flour, and other necessaries.