Property V. Land-Tax.

Pelorus Guardian and Miners' Advocate., Volume 1, Issue 55, 5 August 1890, Page 2

Property V. Land-Tax.

TO THU EDITOR. ■ Sir, —My attention was called to a letter signed “ Manama,” which appeared in your issue of the 22nd ult., supporting the present iniquitous property-tax as the very acme of fair taxation; while the writer says, political theorists in the House of Representatives wish to have it abolished, and substitute a landrtax in its place, and it seems absurd to him that some of these men are returned by country constituents, who must be very ignorant when voting for people who advocate this “monstrous injustice.” I would suggest to Manama ” that it is quite possible the country constituencies alluded to are now giving positive proof of their growing intelligence, by electing practical politicians, and before condemning them by such ungenerous remarks would it not be wiser to analyse the policy from their point of view, and then decide on the true merits of the position. All taxation is fixed by Statute, therefore it is no argument to assume it be this, or that amount, so I will deal with facts as they are at present. Under “ Manama’s ” pet system we pay this year one penny in the £ on the value of all property exceeding £SOO worth ; and threefarthings in the £ for local rates on

the net value without any exemption, this includes the money paid through Boad Boards for charitable aid; and he asserts we should pay twice as much under the land-tax. Let us see how this works out by his own illustration, “ Manaroa ” writes: “ This would, say on a farm in the Wairau worth £3O an acre, and deducting £lO for improvements, mean a tax of Is 8d per acre, or nearly £2l on a farm of 260 acres." I admit the arithmetic is nearly correct, and will pursue the argument to its logical conclusion by granting the farmer, also, paid local rates of three-farthings in the £ besides, which comes to £ls 12s 6d, or a yearly tax of £B6 12s 6d altogether; while the existing taxation under the property tax, for 250 acres quoted at £3O per acre', means capital value £7,500, and as “ Manaroa ” did not allow any exemption neither can I, therefore this sum at one penny in the £ means £3l ss, and the local rates of f d in the £ on the same amount come to £23 8s 9d more, or a total of £54 13s 9d he is paying now as against £B6 12s 6d in the future, leaving a balance, according to “ Manaroa’s ” own example, of £lB Is 3d in favour of land-tax; a nice little rent for the farmer to put in his pocket instead of the public chest. I might go very much further, and state the unimproved value of the same farm could not exceed £lO per acre, as that would be an exceptional price for land without any improvements, and in that case all the taxes by the same method of calculation on the 250 acres would be £lO 8s 4d for land-tax, and £7 16s 3d for local rates, or a total of £lB 4s 7d, which, if even doubled, would then only amount to £36 9s 2d, instead of £54 13s 9d, as at present, while this scheme of taxation spread ever millions of acres, would mean that some of the unearned increment, which belongs to the community would be acquired by the State for their benefit, and thus lighten the sum which had to be raised through the Customs. Surely this is a fair argument against the property-tax, in fact, the letter signed “ Manaroa " is a complete tissue of fallacies, perhaps not intentional, but still all built on sand, without a solid foundation, especially “ when he says under the property-tax everyone pays according to his means, and it is an incentive to make improvements, instead of a person putting his £IOOO in the bank t! because, when invested in buildings, etc., you can put down their selling value at very little, while the other man gets taxed on his full £1000.” Why, “Manaroa” must be quite a novice iu the art of getting outside his i pet tax, for it has been proved just before the property assessment of 1888 that wealthy men were known to take out a draft for the bulk of their capital, , transfer it to a bank in Sydney or Melbourne, and after the assessment was complete just pay the exchange and bring it back to New Zealand, thus escaping the property-tax, and defrauding their fellow colonists in a , far greater degree than even those mentioned by “ Manaroa;” in fact, leaving him and others to pay so much more in proportion to the revenue required. Is this paying according to .their means? Political economists agree that wealth gravitates towards the towns, for, as settlers become rich, they yearn for the flesh-pots of Egypt, and live where luxuries can be ob-. tained, yet if we are to judge by the declaration made by owners when sending in their returns to the Pro-perty-Tax Department; their cash is now over £6,718,000 less than the total deposited in banks, added to the note circulation; thus the Colony is again defrauded of nearly £28,000 per annum, or nearly one seventh of its revenue , to say nothing of the money people have in their own possession, which somehow does not get included in the statements, while their personal assets apparently continue shrinking in a corresponding degree as their personal debts increase. Ah, it is very funny, what, statistics ,develop. Taxation, under any form, is repugnant to an Englishman’s sense of liberty, but when he clearly realises the principle or basis of the tax, is just and equitable, no one recognises his duty to the state more readily, but the incidence of our taxation has been for some years, and still is, a 'source of great vexation to the large number, who have to contribute what they consider, far and beyond, their fair quota, and as for every constitutional grievance, there should be a constitutional remedy, so agitation must continue until tne alteration is granted. Now, if “ Manaroa " will quietly set down and start his premises from the fundamental truth, that land is the source of all wealth, then figure out what he pays under the property-tax rates, and'last, 1 hut not least, through the Customs (which averages £3 Is 9d per head for every man, woman, and child in the Colony), then reduce his own farm to its net value i.e., without any improvements, and I think he will agree with me that the capital it represents will stand a good -many pennies on the £ before the amount of a land-tax reaches anything approaching the sum of his preseht taxation. I am, &c„ ■ - ; v ;,