Property Tax V. Land Tax.

Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 1, Issue 54, 1 August 1890, Page 2

Property Tax V. Land Tax.

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, - Kindly permit me to answer a letter published in your issue of .July 22nd, in which “Manarqa” tries to make us believe that the farmers would be very heavily taxed if the propertytax were repealedand a land-tax levied instead. Now, I ask, how is it possible that a tax on the unimproved value of land can press heavily on the farmers ? Farming land is of very small value in comparison to building or mining lands; a town section is often worth more than a hundred acres of farming land. What difference does it make to the farmer whether.he. pays on his property and land, or on his land alone ? One thing is certain, if he is no longer taxed for improving, he will improve more, and put his land to the best use he can. And what is more to the point, the monopolist and land speculator will have to improve too. How often is the land monopolist denounced ? In your issue of June 27,1 notice that you quote from Mr Farnell’s book “that 15,000 people monopolise nearly 18,000,000 acres of land, whilst 17,000 families are vegetating on 800,000 acres. How can we possibly “ put a stop ” , to dummyism and land speculation in any other way than by making unimproved land pay the same taxation as improved land does ? Why in the »ame of Justice and common-sense do you fine a man for improving his jand, using it for his own good and the goqd df the State, and leave the monopolist, who does qo good t 6 anybodyalmost untaxed. One would think that the great , aim of successive governments had been to try how few, people they' could put on the land instead of how many! For I have seen Something of the working of land monopoly in this colony, i and would scarcely credit that laws coiild ever have beeri made' so absurd as to tax the men who make use of the land fifty times more than those who obstructed settlement, prevented trade, crushed the hard-working settler, and tyrannised oyer ,the .tenant, yet this is called a free country ! Just fancy what a difference it would make to the long-suffering inhabitants and taxpayers of this colony if the 18,000,000 of monopolised land were taxed in the same ratio as the 300,000 acres in use.. - Will Manaroa ’■ then say that the farmers will be worse off than at present, with as many to share the burden ? Yet although “ Manaroa ” is in love with the prop-erty-tax, he seems to think that mortgages on farms are pretty frequent,* and pictures the - poor struggling farmer paying all the tax and the. interest on his mortgage as well; now this is not the case, were the tax placed on the unimproved -value of the land, the mortgagee would have to pay half the tax, as he is in reality part owner of the land; the farmer being merely the nominal owner. ; “ Manaroa j asks, “Why should land pay more than other property. ’’, “ Because property in land is different from any other kind of property. God created the land and gave it to His children. All other property is produced by labor.” “Laud values are ‘ created,-by the community;” What the people as a whole have produced belongs to them by right. Every new road, every railway public works, of every kind increase the ValdC of land. Iti is -the growth of population, and the people’s enterprise and industry that creates

the unearned increment. How can private ; individuals have any right to it Millions of pounds have -been spent in this colony in public works which have benefitted the landowners, and how many of them have paid their fair share of the cost ? '/Arid they can only be'made ;to pay:their just share

Single Tax.