SOLDIERS AND LAND

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10295, 2 June 1919, Page 4

SOLDIERS AND LAND

It is good to learn that the Returned Soldiers’ Association is taking in hand in earnest and businesslike fashion the question of soldier-settle-ment Their Dominion conference, held at Christchurch, adopted on Thursday last the Land Committee's report, which provides for taking tho work of acquiring country land for soldiers out of the hands of the Land Boards and transferring it to new district committees, each to consist ot three members, one appointed by the Oovernor-in-Council, one by the -New Zealand Returned Soldiers’ Association, and one by an A. and P. Association, to be nominated by the Gov-ernor-in-Council. Still more significant and still more hopeful is the fact that it was recognised by the conference that, in the words of Mr T. Millar, “it is possible that under certain conditions tho price of land will go sky-high”; and tho further fact that, on the motion of Mr McManus, a Dunedin delegate, it was resolved “that the Government be urged to introduce a scale of taxation so graduated as to force upon the markctdargo areas of land at present not utilised to its full productive capacity.” That there is abundance of such laud, already fully roaded and well served by railways, is well known to any man who travels about New Zealand with his eyes open. It should be specially well known to the Minister for Lands, to tho members of the Land Purchase Board, and to numbers of others who. in their search for backblocks land for soldiers at 30s to 40s per acre, must have passed through millions of acres of unused or only very partially used land at £3O to £4O per acre, Rom which, as cannot be pointed out too often, the soldier, with the same expenditure of labour and capital, can readily produce and market twenty times as much. If, as Mr J. G. Harkncss stated last week, in his presidential address to tho Wellington Chamber of Commerce, “It is absolutely essential that four hales of wool should be produced where only three are non - , and so with moat, dairy produce, and every industry,” it is manifestly suicidal folly to force returned soldiers and other would-bo settlers far back past theso millions of acres of good, accessible land, calling out for labour to come and use it, on to other land which, as its low price clearly demonstrates, is poor if accessible, and practically inaccessible if good. For this reason, wo cannot agree with Mr Harkncss that “it would pay the Dominion to hand over:to competent men tho unoccupied areas, the waste lands of this country, for a term of years at a nominal rent, or even without rent, provided in a given time they added to the wealth of tho nation. It would pay handsomely.” On tho contrary, wo contend that, • the more competent the men, the more patent is the folly of setting them to work on “the unoccupied areas, the waste lands of this country,” when millions of acres of occupied lands, of the best and most accessible, are either held idle or only very inadequately used. It cannot ho too soon nor too clearly recognised that to force our returned soldiers on to the waste lands of the Dominion is to waste the best man-power of the nation. It is small wonder that Mr Harkncss, advocating the settlement of returned soldiers on waste lands, tells us that “no great returns from that source can he forthcoming for some time.” Indeed, had he said “for a very long time,” ho would have been nearer the mark. It is matter for rejoicing that the returned soldiers revolt against tho waste of their man-power on backbloolcs waste lands, against a system that would prove as wasteful of capital as of labour, and would condemn themselves, their wives, and their families to an “enforced isolation” —(we thank Mr Darkness for tho phrase)—as stupid and heart-breaking as it is unnecessary. When ho comes to deal with tho question of land taxation, however, Mr Harkncss gives some facts snd figures which will well repay careful study. Ho shows, for example, that the land tax, which in 1914 was £767,450 (as against £604,900 in 1909), had risen in "919 to ‘£1,513,000, while from 1909 to 1918 the valuation of land and improvements combined rose from £271,516,000 to £421,296,000, or by 55.16 per cent. In the same period, the unimproved value alone increased from £172,760,000 to £260,666.000. or by sonje 88 millions sterling in the nine years. Of this at least £44,000,000 has accrued to the 6000 to 7000 payers of graduated land tax. So that, whereas since 1909 tho

land tax has increased by £900,090 a year, tho power of these big land monopolists, as such, to levy tribute upon the people of New Zealand has increased by £3,200,000 a year. Therefore, even if these big monopolists paid tho whole of the £900,61)0 a year increase in tho land tax, which they do not, they would still have left a net increase of £1,300,000 a year. It is very clear, in short, that on tho balance, instead of the people levying, through tho land tax, a heavier toll on the land monopolists, it is the land monopolists who are levying a very much bigger toll on tho people. Air Hnrkncss gives sound reason for supposing that the land-lord toll is far greater than the figures quoted indicate :

Now no sane or practical man (ho declares; who has yiven the subject careful thought, but will come to tho conclusion that during the last twenty years tho advance in lanuecl property has been in the direction of the. unimproved value. Take the following illustration of the position:—Fifteen years ago a dairy larm of 100 acres was purchased for per acre. Tie improved value was then LiloO, and the capital value Jll5OO. Six years ago it was sold for Jt-U per acre. To-day the present occupier could sell iff the open market for ATO. The Government values of twenty years ago still stand- There are thousands of properties in the Dominion to-day in a similar position Now no system of land taxation (he adds) can bo considered fair that_ ignores uniformity in its'method of valuation. Anomalies in value are inexcusable and indefensible. The system should be brought up to date and at approximate market values. This principle is non-existent at present. Land values, properly and justly assessed, would be a strong deterrent in limiting values rising to a fictitious price.

If the above statements and figures are correct, and we see no reason to doubt them, it is clear that tiic unimproved value of tho land is considerably underassessed ; and tbo up-to-date valuation which Mr Harkuess very rightly demands, would make even more glaring tile discrepancy between the enormous rise in land values and the very inadequate increase in tho land tax. Tho proper assessment of land values would certainly tend to check the fictitious rise in tho price of land. But it is far too much, to say that the mere up-to-date assessment “would be a strong deterrent.” That could only be said of a substantial land tax levied oif tlio up-to-date valuation. Such a tax, indeed, would not only strongly deter the -fictitious rise in price of land, but would go far to force idle or half-idle land into full use, thus making ample room for soldier-settlers and others on good land already railed and loaded.