LAND AND INCOME.

Hokitika Guardian, 12 September 1924, Page 1

LAND AND INCOME.

(To the Editor). .Sir, —In your issue of the 28th there appears an article from tin anonymous contributor in support of the recommendations of the Taxation Commission. 1 find that the article in question has been published, simultaneously by numerous papers throughout the country, and is evidently part of the subterranean movement which lias been at work for some time to destroy the land-tax. Inasmuch as it bristles with inaccuracies, I claim the right to reply.

To begin with, your contributor should improve his knowledge ol Now Zealand history. He tells us that in 1881 Sir George Grey’s bursting-up policy ‘‘was being superseded” by Air John Rallnttce’s closer settlement policy. Now, the Government of Sir George Grey was in power for barely two years, coming into office on October loth, 8177, and resigning on October Sth, 1871), as the result of a. Want-of-Confidence Alotion moved on account of the defection of four Auckland Liberals. Thereafter the IlallAtkinsun Government entile into power, and Sir George Grey, though he remained a Member of Parliament until 1899, never held office again. Ai.r llallanco was certainty a Aleinber of tlie Grey Government, hut after its fall he did not regain office until January 1891. Neither Sir George Grey nor his Government fathered any Imrstingii|> policy beyond the modest land-tax of one-halfpenny in the 9 authorised liv the Property Assessment Act, 1877, which the Ilall-Atkiuson Government was careful to repeal before any revenue had been collected thereunder. .Moreover, inasmuch as Sir George Grey and Air Hallance were colleagues in tlie same Government, it is palpably absurd to speak of the two as having different policies. A'cnir contributor's historical resume, therefore, is as ridiculous as the rest ot his article, which is saying a great deal. ’flip remainder of the article is based on two unsupported assertions (I) That the land-tax is a class tax, and That it falls with particular severity on farmers—and in support of this latter proposition he quotes some extraordinary evidence given by Sir John Eimllav, l\.C'., hchire the luxation Commission. I do not propose to follow your contributor through all his meandering sophistry, hut 1 simple submit the following facts. which can lie verified, hy reference to official records if necessary:—1. According to Parliamentary Paper HI7A, 1907, mere were at that date 128,01.) freeholders in New Zealand, of whom 90,.’172 were absolutely exempted from land-tax, for the reason that the maximum unimproved value of each man’s holding did not exceed 97.1 If). 2. The total number of land-tax-payers at that date accordingly was Ml ,0 lo ; that is to say the difference between 128.01 d and 90,.’172. M. Of the 128,017. freeholders, 82,9175 were owners of city and town freeholds, and M8,77-"5 owners of rural land. Thus we have indubitable evidence that in 1907 nearly two-thirds of the treeholders of New Zealand were owners of city and town property. I. Thunks to tlie opposition of the present Government, no statistics arc available to show the present position; that is (O say, tlm people New Zealand are denied Hie opportunity ot know ing how their own laud is held. 7i. I’efore giving evidence bclorc the Taxation Commission, however, I interviewed Mr Clark, the Commissioner of Taxes, ami I obtained that gentleman's assurance, (a) that, although the number of freeholders is now lio- , essarilv greater, the foregoing proportions still hold good, and 0>) 1 had Iluit gentleman’s permission to make use of the filet. 15. Inasmuch as there are now on, 000 payer* of land-tax, the total number of freeholders cannot, ho less than 220.0011. of which three-fourths, that is to say 105,000 are completely exempted from land-tax, while iw'ut birds or 1 0'..000 are owners of town properly, and 71.000 owners of country land !

7. These lieiires lire supported in ntlier ilirecliiiMs. For example, the T';i>:sit ion (. omm.issiou’s report el. 19-1 (p. I_) stnle.s definitely thnl sevensixteenths el the unimproved value altaches Id horough land and nine-six-teenths Id eonnlry land! 11l lace of the forejroini; I'aets I ean only conclude that to describe the land-tax as a tax on farmers is due In sheer ignorance or hlind disregard of the I'aets, and inasmuch as the facts are ea-ilv aecessihle. that ignorance is as reprehensihle as wilful perversion. The foregoing fads were placed hy me before the recent Taxation Commission in the presence of Mr Clark. I challenge your contributor or anyone else to disprove them, and accordingly I leave yonr readers to draw their nun conclusions as to the honesty of criticism based upon such lalsehood. InI'ortunately I have to conclude that even a Kino’s Counsel can he inaccurate, recklessly so in lad.

Some of your contributor's phrasing is reminiscent of that used by the Taxation Conitnission. For example, we have reference to "the weight of evidence,” which we are told proves the desirability of repealing the landtax! The real weight of evidence can be ascertained, not by accepting at their face value the statements made bv slut tv politicians, by territorial magnates or by city traffickers m the people’s land, but by subjecting their statements to the test of comparison with ollicial fails. Test the evidence of witnesses who, like Fir John Kindlav, denounced the land-tax as a class tax UDon farmers, by the figures hereinbefore quoted, and wlmt becomes ol itThere is only one honest course—to reject it utterly as unworthy of credence. J„ conclusion I would point out one or two significant facts in c-unection with the recommendations made >.' the Taxation Commission and approved hy your contributor. First, although the land-tax has been m force for thirty-three years in this country, its abolition is recommended by the Commission in three lines, or thirtyseven words! Not a single reason is given in support of that roeonunenda«'ion. Vet when we compare the continuous manifestation ol popular di content with the old property-tax during the twelve years of its existence with the quiescence of the taxpayer during the thirty-three years the landtax has been in force the conelus„ s irresistible that the hitter has ju-titied itself, and that the onn>

proving the contrary lies heavily on its opponents. Though the Commission's give tlie small church choirs a chance, recommendation purports to lie based on the evidence of witnesses it is a matter for comment that the particular recommendation to abolish the land-tax, harmonises completely with the declared policy of the Premier liefore the Commission was set up at all. I am etc., P. J. O’REGAN. Wellington, (>th Sept.. 1921.