THE GLOBE. FRIDAY, JUNE 16. 1882. AN EXTREME PLATFORM.

Globe, Volume XXIV, Issue 2555, 16 June 1882, Page 2

THE GLOBE. FRIDAY, JUNE 16. 1882. AN EXTREME PLATFORM.

It would appear that the so - called Liberals have at length sneeeeded in obtaining a platform. The want of one has hitherto been a great drawback to the party, and they are to be congratulated, not on the nature of their new cry, but on the bare fact that one has been found. Mr, Turnbull has given notice that next week he will move a motion affirming the principle that there should be a progressive land tax upon all persons holding land to an extent of more than 500 acres. Sir George Grey and Mr. Holmes have, we are told, proclaimed that this is the centre and key of the policy of the “ Liberal ” party. Now that wo know what the keystone of this section of the House really is, it will be far easier to gauge their claims to general confidence. If the idea is based on a totally mistaken notion of the position that property in land really hold, we fancy that the public will not be slow to recognise the fact, and will not jump to the conclusion that their views on other subjects are sound and sensible. Now, it has always appeared to us that special legislation touching one class of property and not another is an altogether mistaken policy. Why should land be treated in a manner different from other property? Is not the notion one springing from those dark ages, about which, on occasions, Sir George Grey is so eloquent ? In those days when trade had not reached that development which has added so enormously to the wealth of many nations, land was almost the only source of wealth, and was naturally treated as something altogether apart. The different ranks of a nation were divided by the number of acres held by the different land-owners. No one could aspire to municipal and other descriptions of office unless he was seized of that which alone could confer on him solid distinction. In fact, the possession of land was synonomous with the possession of wealth. Those good old times are passed, never, it is trusted, to return, but the traditions engendered in them still remain, and it is singular to find that they who claim to be most forward in their ideas are the very ones who cling moat tenaciously to these mediaeval fictions. Modern thought which is truly advanced fails to see that the landowner is in a different position from any other holder of property. If a progressive tax is to be put on a man directly he acquires a certain amount of land, why should it not also be placed on individuals who amass other descriptions of property. A merchant erects a building which alone, not taking into consideration the goods inside, is worth more than 500 acres. Why should he go scot free ? Why should not a progressive tax be placed on all that he owns above a cer.'ain quantity ? Because, say Sir George and his followers, there is only a limited quantity of land, and its value is more independent of outside influences than other property. But is this assertion borne out by fact ? Does not the value of land vary as much as that of anything else ? Look at the value or landed property in Ireland, for instance. People owning many broad acres in that country are absolutely beggared at the present moment. And, although this may be considered an extreme instance, still the same sort of thing also obtains, to a less extent, in England. In New Zealand itself there is no form of property the value of which is less fixed than that of land. At times it rises in an altogether preposterous manner. At others

sinks to almost zero. We assert, without much fear of contradiction, that, taking all descriptions of property into consideration, in nor,® has the general price boon so fluctuating as in that of land. In no line has money been lost so freely as in buying and selling it. In times of depression a merchant may send his goods to another country, but not so the land-owner. He can neither clear out or sell, but has to await, as patiently as he may be able to, the turn of the tide. So that a large land-owner cannot, in truth, be said to be any better off than a large holder of any other description of wealth.

_ But again, say Sir George and his following, there is the unearned increment which has to be taken into consideration. How none have been able to define clearly this unearned increment. It would seem to mean merely that as population increases so does the value of all description of property. The merchant, as much as anybody else, profits by the increase of the mouths to feed and the bodies to clothe. In Christchurch itself the cases of traders who have been hoisted into wealth through no brilliant merit of their own, but from the simple fact that the population baa increased around them, are too numerous to mention. They have profited by the unearned increment as clearly as the landowner.

In point of fact any attempt to differentiate between land and other sources of wealth is sure to fail, because the attempt is not based on sound principles. If it is thought advisable that the rich, man should contribute more, proportionately, to the common purse than the poor man—well and good. That principle is easily understood, and it is one recognised in the property and income taxes, where a limit is placed under which property and income go free. If again a progressive tax is advocated on all wealth over that which provides for a bare existence—that again is a principle which can be argued out with some chance of success. But to treat land as a different thing altogether from other property, and to affirm that it should be exceptionally handicapped, is not within reason. It may be the " liberalplatform, but it most certainly is not the platform of advanced thinkers. No such tar would benefit the masses in the long run, becanse the masses are dependent on sonnd legislation.

It is instructive to sea that this first principle of the Opposition has been fathered chiefly by Sir George Grey, and not by Mr. Montgomery. The latter gentleman is cautious to an extreme, and is evidently not sure of how the proposal will be received. He is not a man for desperate measures to meet desperate emergencies, and consequently he is not the man for his party. Although his party are in great need of a cry, he has but little of that elan that will invent one. Sir Geerge is the man for a forlorn hope. He has started an undertaking that looks specious to those who are accustomed to rave about the bloated landowner, and to those whose souls are in the bursting up of great estates. Sir George has consequently leapt to the front, while Mr. Montgomery is quietly ignored.