CORRESPONDENCE.

Horowhenua Chronicle, 28 January 1913, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

(Our correspondents' opinions aro their own; tho responsibility of the editorial ones makes sufficient ballast for tho Editor's shoulders.) THE "GRADUATED LAND-TAX" (To tho Editor). .Sir,-May 1 be permitted to use some of your space to give same of my opinions on various doings of the so-called ''lieform party.'' First of all on the most important question of the day. the "laud question." ■and the Graduated J.and Tax which the Liberals introduced in order to hurst up the large estates for closet settlement. That was its sole purpose: it was not. put on the Statute Hook as a means of drawing revenue. "Well, the Massey party pretend that they have increased the graduated land tax to burst up the squatter; and I say "no: we look carefully ' into the valuation proposals of the Massey party ; the Massey party will nullify any increase in tax simply by increasing the amount allowed for improvements." They are thlowing dust in the eves of the country by saying they were going to tax their friends the big man, and break up the big estates, or as they put it. to "encourage'' the owners of the big estates to sell them. In his Hudget. address, the lion. .Lus. Allen stated what would happen to the man owning £200.000 worth of land. It is like a man going through New Zealand 'and saying ho would shoot every man over Oft in height, n by there are only three men in all New Zealand who own 'over this value ot la ml. The lion, gentleman di<l noL say what was going to happen to the man who held £-10.000 worth. It is not nice to dwell upon, for tlio Massey party. ft is too absurd. Now, you will find that, a man that has C 10.000 worth of unimproved value in land probably has £53.000 worth of capital value. That man is called upon to pay under this beautifully, gradually. graduated land tax proposal £12 -Is fld move than lie -paid before: so how absurd it is to think that this squatter will j squeal at this petty demand. The Hon. Mr Allen said it was with a view of encouraging "these large landowners, not with a view of encouraging the poor wretch who is ground down to £2 « week, and who has to pay custom duties. He is asked to wait until next session. He might be touched next year; might be. 'because if lie is touched, and if relief is given to those who really require it. the Massey party cannot afford to lose that revenue, and will have to put it on to the large landowners, some of whom are supporters of the present Government, and some. part, of it. The Massey party talk about Native land : hmk at Hawke's Hay and Marlborough, with their great areas of land lying practically idle, while our young men cannot, get 7altd. and leave the country wholesale for Australia. The squatters who own these lands are the friends of the Government. jand are to be left in undisputed possession. whilst small areas already settled are to be tinkered with so as to try and make a show. Then again, the ownens are the people who should bring the land into the market, and not the Government. Mr Massey \s Land Hill. granting the lreehoJd to Crown tenants at original value plus I per cent., is pure robbery of the State. The land policy ol the "Liberal'' party was founded upon the theory that it was the duty ol the State to make land available to men ol restricted means, on terms of occupation which encouraged enterprise, and rewarded labour. I nder that policy thousands ol tamilies have been happily place on the land. Many had little or no money to start with. Now tliev are well ofi. Some of these tenants who are independent turn round now and demand that the freehold (should be given to tfiem at the price, or value, when they took up the lease ol their holdings. J'n many places the holdings have greatly increased in value—a value not entirely duo to their own exertions or expenditure, but- to the increase in population, the activity of the people, and the expenditure by the •State on public works. Surely the interests of the people of .New Zealand in these holdings and the ultimate effects of granting the freehold to these tenants should be considered? Mr Massey its sacrificing the interests of the State to those of a class. The people should obtain that increase in value of these lands which is publicly created as time goes on. As a. matter of fact, he is ignoring the national landlords, flic people; he is depriving them of their rights in contradistinction to what he alfows to private landlords. Does Mr Massey for a. moment propose that fanners who recently, or a few years ago. leased their land from ptivate individuals or companies should have the absolute right to acquire the freehold to the ownership of tho lands or holdings? The Prime Minister is not bold enough to say that ho would take awav the

owneibhip of lands from these people and give the same to private tenants. So, if it is logical to take away the freehold or o\\Heirship from the people ol the eountij ■who aac the State landlords, and gi\e it to State tenants, 1 say there is just as much right to mete out the same treatment to the private landlord and give the tenants the freehold. Suite landlordism is better for the country, and the tenant, than private landlordism, but T piedict that much of the land of which the (Government is giving the freehold : will be occupied by men who do not own it. and they will bo ratepayers to private owners, and so we will have a system of private landlordism connected with these lands which is not in the interests of the country and not for its welfare. — 1 am. etc.. CLOSER SETTLEM EXT. 1 ■hip himh mi rn n .rim