TAXES FOR ROADS AND SCHOOLS.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 20, 10 June 1871, Page 2

TAXES FOR ROADS AND SCHOOLS.

[From the Independent, June 6.]

The letter of “ Agricola,” printed elsewhere, of our opinion of which the writer seems himself to have a faint presentiment, we do consider “reasoned illogically”; but we gladly pay a passing tribute to the writer’s evident sincerity and ea.restness. We hope to have many such letters f om the class reprepresented by “ Agricola,” which we take to be the “ Agricola” or “ small firmer” class. Such contributions would imply an earnest study of the obligations we lie under for the advantage# of good government, and of the fairest mode of distributing the expense of procuring and maintaining these advantages. We cannot go over again ground that we have lately travelled, to show why we have arrived at the conclusion, that “the consideration by which the amount of taxes to be paid by an individual should be determined” is, as correctly stated by “ Agricola,” “ his ability to contribute,” and not “ the amount of benefit he would receive.” That it is impossible to determine what amount of benefit each receives, and that the attempt to fix a definite value for an! indefinite thing only leads to absurdity 1 and injustice, are both demonstrable, from “ Agricola’s” own statements. It is not the fact that “ a man with 1000 acres would be benefited ten times as much as a man with 100 acres” by the expenditure of a Road or Education Rate, to which both contribute “ Agricola” must know that the farm of 100 acres may be increased in value ten times more than the one of 1,000 acres by the construction of a good road, and that this possibility has been recognised in past legislation on this subject. It is true as “ Agricola” states that the first Road Board Act provided for a uniform acreage rate but the very fact that all subsequent acts were based on a different principle should have led “Agricola” to try and discover the reason for the change. The first act was passed on the 29th of January, 1856, but bad .not been long in operation till the injustice of the uniform acreage rate ; began to appear. Accordingly, that at the very next session of the Provincial Council, a committee was appointed to consider it, whose recommendations were afterwards embodied in the next act, which provided that —“ The Board of Wardens shall assess and levy the rates upon the land within the district in the form of an acreage rate, but not necessarily an uniform acreage rate, and may assess and levy the same at such rate per acre as to the Board may seem equitable, with full power to exonerate either wholly or in part any land from such rate ; regard being had, in all cases, to the natural value of the land to be rated, and its proximity and accessibility to the highway for the construction or repair of which such rate is being raised.” Here, it will be observed, are three principles introduced, not one of which “ Agricola” takes into account in calculating the “ amount of benefit received,” namely, value, proximity, and accessibility. To take his own illustration. His farm of 100 acres may be originally worth, more than a 1000 acre farm in the new large district. More may be producible from it than from the large one. Its productiveness in fact may be so great that, according to the doctrines of the philosopher and friend of the small farmers, John Stuart Mill/ the “ spontaneous increase of rent,” the “ accession of riches” arising from the tillage of which it is susceptible, is a fit subject for special taxation. To such a farm, a road, by which its produce can be carted to market, is of immensely greater value than to the larger but less productive farm, which sends to market on its own feet its live stock—its only produce. It would be a waste of time to discuss the other principles—proximity and inaccessibility ; as every one knows that a road benefits landed property, not in direct proportion to its extent in acres, but according to the additional facilities it gives for its cultivation, by enabling manure, seeds, agricultural implements, &c., to be more easily brought to it, and its produce and stock, to be sent from it. The increase of population that necessarily follows good roads may quadruple the valueof a small farminone year; while, to a remote and inaccessible one, the difference may be scarcely, if at all, appreciable. Again, a good roadmay

render a small farm bought originally at £1 per acre divisible into quarteracre sections for buildings, and suddenly raise its value to £6O an acre ; and we think “ Agrieola” must have heard of such cases. It seems to us a monstrous injustice to tax this land at a uniform rate with that which aU the roads in the world will never increase in value to any appreciable extent. Like the “ daft Wattie” of the Gourlay Family who chose the small sixpence rather than the big penny, we would not be greedy, we would “ take the little one” if we had the offer, and choose the small farm in preference to one ten times the size, if inferior in value, proximity and accessibility. We hope we have- convinced “Agrieola” that he has reasoned from false premises in assuming in one place “ for the sake of establishing a general rule that a man with a thousand acres would be able to pay ten times as much as a man with only a hundred,” and also in another place that he would necessarily get ten times the benefit. It does seem a very hard thing (and we give “Agrieola” credit, for putting it very ingeniously) in taxing land to tax the “ improvements thereon and the ciy “ Tax the land only” is at present [ very popular, from hfving been lately 1 raised at Tirnaru by Mr Stafford, and at Wellington by Mr Richmond. Wc shall endeavor to show how palpably dishonest it is. To tax the land is to * diminish its value exactly by so much as it takes to pay the tax. It is to take from the owners of the smaller portion of the wealth of the country, and give to the owners of the larger portion of it. The “ improvements” on the land, viz., the shops, houses, mills, &c., which are the sources of wealth to tradesmen, merchants and capitalists are to go free ; while the lands “ some good and let dearly; some best let alone” are all to be classified together under a uniform acreage rate, and are to be depreciated in value by so much per cent, as the tax imposed bears to their respective values. Three land owners, A B and C, having landed propel ties differing only in extent and not iu value, are to suffer together but not equally. Like three travellers with one hundred pounds each in their purses, they are to be suddenly met by a “Highwayman,” named Uniform Acreage Rate (for some “ highwaymen” have fine sounding - names), who lias got the hint and been “ set on” by an accomplice named “ Agrieola.” With pistols at their heads they are “ requested” to deliver up their purses. This highwayman, being a whimsical fellow, measures these carefully by a rule he carries about with him, and robs the travellers in proportion to the length of these vehicles of wealth. A’s purse is twice as long as B’s, which again is twice the size of G’s ; so that after the highwayman has done with them, \ has lost £4O, B £2O, and C £lO. The sly accomplice “Agrieola” now comes to the front, and tells them it is all perfectly fair; they have been made to “ deliver” at a uniform rate per inch! If “Agrieola” goes as far as Mr Stafford or Mr Richmond, and advocates a permanent land tax for general purposes, of course he advocates a permanent depreciation of all landed property. But observe the injustice to the present proprietors. All buyers will acquire land henceforth, at a reduction in price equal to the amount of the land tax, which they would therefore escape from paying,- while the present proprietors would remain burdened with it, even after selling their land, since they must sell it at a loss equal to the sum of money which represents the value of the fee simple of the tax. As J. S. Mill remarks, “ Its imposition would thus be tantamount to the confiscation for public uses of a percentage of their property equal to the percentage laid on their income by the tax.” As Mr Stafford regards Mill as a high authority on such subjects, we may further quote his remarks in continuation : “ That such a proposition should find any favor is a striking instance of the want of conscience in matters of taxation, resulting from the absence of any fixed principles in the public mind, and of any indication of a sense of justice on the subject in the general conduct of Governments. Should the scheme ever enlist a large party in its support, the fact would indicate a laxity of pecuniary integrity in national affairs scarcely inferior to American repudiation.” We scarcely think Mr Stafford

w iU bring forward in the Assembly this wild scheme of a pure land tax; but we venture to predict, that if he does, he will not advocate a uniform acreage rate for rugged mountain peaks and fertile alluvial plains. We would recommend “ Agricola” to read over the report referred to above, bearing on it the names of at least two Wairarapa representatives, Messrs Renall and Masters. A little reflection will, we think, suffice to show the force of what we endeavored to illustrate in our issue of the 24th November last a The thing to be studied is true equality of taxation. All taxation being a sacrifice, equality of taxation is just equality of sacrifice _ Our country settlers must not expect impossibilities; in other words, they must not expect that the exact share which each should take of the public burdens can ever be accurately laid down—it can only be approximated in a spirit of self-sacrifice and mutual justice.”

“ Agricola” deviat.es accidentally into common sense when he asserts that * it is only fair that people should contribute towards a certain public undertaking in proportion to their means,” (the very quintescence of the Government policy), using os an illustration the people of Wellington taxing themselves for water. “Agricola cannot have read the recent speeches of Councillor Carpenter, or he would have known that this much needed reform is yet in the future, and that its only opponent (the worthy councillor just named) opposes it on the very ground that “ the expenditure of the tax will” not “ benefit all the ratepayers alike.” Councillor Carpenter rejoices in a minority of one in the City Council, and we think “ the good many settlers of “Agricola’s” acquaintance, who oppose the principle of taxation proposed by the Superintendent and Executive cn the very same ground, will find themselves in as inconsiderable a minority in the country and in the Provincial Council.