South Canterbury Times, MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1881.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2718, 5 December 1881, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1881.

Thb desirability of substituting a land tax for the present property tax is one of the most important questions which the electors will be called upon to decide, by their votes, during the coming general election for members of the House of Representatives, as it is one on which the future progress of the colony to a large extent depends. We pointed out in a former article that the property tax oi the Hall Administration was unjust and unfair in principle, and that it was calculated to impose a heavy burden on the masses, in order to relieve the large landed proprietors. The “ Timaru Herald,” in its issue of Saturday, endeavoured to controvert our argument, but its mode of reasoning was of the most illogical and evasive description. Our contemporary commenced in his usual patronising way by raising an issue to the effect that the land tax, in the opinion of its advocates, was “ a popular tax—a tax which is favorable to the poor and paid mainly by the rich,” In discussing the relative merits of the two systems of taxation the terras “ poor ” and “ rich ” were never used by us, or by any candidate for the suffrages of the four South Canterbury electorates. The “ Herald ” is always declaiming against class legislation, yet every political article that appears in that journal has a strong class leaning. The words “ poor ” and “ rich ” have evidently been used in the article under notice with the view of showing that our morning contemporary is always desirous of championing the interests of the poor. What mockery I When did ever the “ Herald,” its friends, or political wire-pullers behind the scenes, ever consider the “ poor ” man unless at election time, when they wanted to patronise and make use of him ? In proof of the property tax being the panacea for all the ills the “ poor ” are heir to, the “ Herald ” with great flippancy makes the statement that under the property tax, property to the value of £SOO is exempted from taxation, and adds : “ that fact alone is sufficient to demolish the contention that the property tax falls unjustly on the poor.” After such a learned and withering statement it was evidently presumed that the advocates of a land tax must collapse. What about the land tax of the late Government ? Did it not also make an exemption up to £SOO in value ? Most decidedly it did, as every schoolboy ought to know. It was not convenient, however, for the “Herald” to mention the exemption under the Land Tax Act, as it would not have fitted in with his one-sided views, Our contemporary’s first shot in favour of the “ poor” has missed fire. To proceed to the next objection he raised against the land tax, namely, that it did not make mortgagees pay on the amount of their mortgages on the land, we reply that it is easy to insert a clause in a Land Tax Act which shall make mortgagees pay. We admit that the defect in the Grey Government’s Land Tax Act—and the only defect in it—was that mortgagees were not required to pay a tax on the value of the mortgages they held. In discussing the merits of the two modes of taxation we made no reference to tho defunct Land Tax Act. We cou-

tended that the land itself should be taxed, but not the buildings and improvements, nor the stocks, goods or chattels of anyone. We also pointed out that merchants and traders were taxed on the capital they had invested in their l business, whether they were making or losing money by such investment; and tho same remarks apply to the farmer. Under a land tax the mortgagee should of course be made to pay on the value of his interest in the land. Having got over the two Conservative objections, we proceed to the “ Herald’s” next misrepresentation of facts ; and with a view of fairly showing the devices that journal will resort to to keep up the present “ squattocratic” system of taxation, we shall quote their words. They are as follows:—

The very first principle of a land tax, however, makes it a burdensome tax on the poor, as contrasted with a property tax. It is a tax levied exclusively on one section of the community, namely, those who get their living by the cultivation of the soil, the producers of the country, the section whose industry is the source of the wealth of all other sections.

If these remarks were true they would indeed be damaging to the proposal to substitute a land tax in lieu of the property tax ; bat they are not true. We do not intend to support our contradiction of them by merely asserting that they are not true. We shall quote no other authority than that of the Hon. the Colonial Treasurer himself, and as that gentleman (Major Atkinson) is, in the opinion of the “ Herald,” the very acme of all that is great and glorious in finance, they will not, we imagine, question the statement of such a distinguished authority. On referring to the official report of Parliamentary proceedings we find: LAND TAX VALUATIONS. The Hon. Premier gave replies to questions asked by the hon member for Hokitika, Mr Seymour George, on the 17th instant, relative to the estimated value of land in the Colony. The questions and replies being as follows : Mr George asked the Colonial Treasurer, (1) The total estimated value of land in the Colony as valued by the land-tax valuers under “ The Land Tax Act, 1878 (2) the total estimated value of land in the Colony taxable under the Act; (3) the number of persons who hold land in the Colony, and are taxable under the Act, and the total amount of tax payable by them ; (4) the number of persons who hold land in the Colony, but are exempted from the land tax, under the exemption clause of the said Act ? The Hon. Colonial Treasurer said the total number of properties in New Zealand was 87,105. It has been found that there are some persons who own as many as one hundred properties in New Zealand. It has also been found that there are 67,000 properties under £SOO net value. It is believed that the revenue derived from the Tax will amount to the estimated sum of £IOO,OOO, notwithstanding the depreciation in property that has taken place. Had the valuation been made at the time this Act was passed there is no doubt that at least 20 per cent, more would have been realised. There being now in the Department a valuation of every property in New Zealand, should there be any alteration in the exemption, it will not be necessary to make a new valuation of properties, that would become liable to the Tax. The total of the improved value of property is £99,566,679, and the amount of mortgages £21,764,292, which probably includes a large sum lent on the security of live stock. It is believed that £10,123,586 may be estimated to be foreign capital, and £11,640,712 maybe estimated to be colonial capital. The total interest is £1,845,078, which is 8J per cent. The amount of foreign and colonial capital, however,is only an estimate made upon the best data that could be procured. The actual expenditure of the Department to June 30 was £17,073 19s. 10d., and the liabilities to the same date, due principally to valuers, were £6021; total, £23,094 19s. IQd. It is estimated that the expenditure for the current year will be £BSOO.

This is a lengthy report, and is fuller than is required for the purpose of our present argument, but we publish the answers in full to prevent its being said that we only gave as much of it as suited our purpose. Does the Hon. Colonial Treasurer’s statement prove that the land tax is a “ burdensome tax on the poor,” or that “ it is a tax levied exclusively on one section of the community?” The Treasurer says that out of 87,105 properties in New Zealand there were 67,000 properties under £SOO net value, which means that out of 87,105 properties only 27,105 were taxed under the land tax. In other words 67,000 people out of 87,105 escaped the land tax altogether. Those who escaped taxation were the “ poor ” people,—we thank the “ Herald ” for the word—yet we are told that “ the land tax is a burdensome tax on the poor.” Was there ever such a perversion ofthe truth ? We imagine that the 67,000 people who escaped the land tax were what is meant as the “ poor,” but it is quite on the cards that the “ Herald ” will swear by the Hall Government —the Gods of their idolatry that when they wrote “poor” they meant “rich.” We know they often try to make black white,and they now have an opportunity of performing that, to us, very difficult and never attempted feat. So much for the “ Herald’s” advocacy of the property tax. We gave our views on Friday last of the damaging effect the property tax has produced in towns, and we ask the dwellers in towns not to record their votes in favor of any candidate who holds views in favor of the property tax. If direct taxation is necessary to take the place of the present iniquitous property tax, we should suggest a land tax with a £SOO exemption, and a provision that the mortgagee shall pay tax on his interest in the land according to the amount of bis mortgage, and if further taxation is necessary—but at present we do not admit that it is—an income tax on all incomes over say £3OO per annum is the fairest, as it will make people pay who can afford to pay, and exempt farmers and traders who invest capital, and—through bad seasons and depression in business—make nothing. These are, we contend, fair and equitable systems of to:nitiou, and those of the candidates who advocate them deserve the support of the electors. Some of

the political charlatans who are now standing for parliamentary honors say —and the “ Herald ” supports them—that “ however good a land tax may be for the towns, it is a bad thing for the country ; nothing beats the property tax.” On behalf of the farmers we emphatically deny the statement. The property tax not only taxes their land, but it taxes their buildings, fences, stock, implements, and all improvements, while it assists the large landed proprietors, the owners of from 40,000 to 80,000 acres, because the owner of from 200 to 300 acres of land has, as a rule, as valuable buildings on his farm as there are to be found on the large estates. The land tax will not tax improvements, and it consequently will not prove a drag on the progress of the country. If improvements are not handicapped by a tax, the large sums of English money now in the country for investment will be invested, employment will be found fur our large surplus labor,and the country will progress, as it would have progressed, but for the stagnation policy of the present Government ; a policy that prevented capital and capitalists from coming out and settling in the colony,and drove many hundreds of our best workmen and artisans away to other countries to seek the employment they could not obtain here. We ask our readers to weigh well what we have said on the subject 6f taxation, and remember that the remedy is in their hands. In discussing the question we have by far exceeded the ordinary space devoted to a leading article, but as the matter discussed is of such vast importance to the community we make no apology.