THE ANNUAL VALUE-TO-LET PRINCIPLE.

Southland Times, Volume 2, Issue 66, 23 June 1863, Page 2

THE ANNUAL VALUE-TO-LET PRINCIPLE.

I Comparing the wonderful progress i m-de by this Province during tbe last few months with the 3l *w advance of former years, it can hardy be doubted that Southland at present owes her prosperity entirely to the adjacent gold fields. To retain permanently within her boundaries the vast influx of population attracted by her auriferous trea sures, should be the chief aim of her legislators : any measure, therefore, which rmy facilitate or retard that end cannot fail to be of paramount importance. Such a decided tax on industry and improvement as that implied in the " Annual-value-to-let" principle ofthe " Roads Ordinance," is open to grave objection, injurious alike to employers and employees. Farmers will naturally decline to engage laborers upon works which, however advantageous to the country at large, will subject them to a fine almost wholly escaped by the owner of the adjoining unoccupied section, who, having bought on speculation, will some day sell to a bona Jide settler at thrice the original cost, thereby lessening by threefold the amount of cultivation that settler can afford. It also suggests a curious anomaly. In the absence of any legal power to enforce the " improvement clause" of the land regulations, the object has been sought to be attained by a tax on unimproved lands. The effect of the " An-nual-value-to-let" principle is diametrically opposite, the chief tax being imposed on IMPROVED LAND. The main argument adduced by its supporters is, that uuder this system all land pays in proportion to its value ; whereas an acreage rate would be the same, whether the land were two miles from town and worth L J 00 an acre, or twenty miles and worth Ll. The comparative value of land is determined by two circumstances : — lst. The amount of improvement, and 2nd, the Distance from town. In the former case, as I have already maintained, the result i.s a tax on industry ; impolitic as a penalty for cultivation, and unjust as taxing a class. But if the distance from town be the test, I would point out that, as the value decreases with increasing distance, so increases the length of road required — whether main-road or byroad. Thus £100 worth of land two miles fiom town is taxed the same at, £100 wnrlli >,',enty milos ofl, although

one needs twenty miles of road and the other only two. Or in other words, the settler two miles from town pays £100 for one acre, because he requires only two miles of road ; while the Other twenty miles off receives 1-00 acres for that money, in consequence of the disadvantage of needing twenty miles of road. Yet both are to be taxed alike, notwithstanding the disparity of their wants. On the other hand, an acreage rate would offer no obstacle to cultivation, and would tax the land exactly in proportion to its requirements, it being remembered that the "annual value to let" increases in the precise ratio that the demand for roads decreases. In concluding for the present I would strongly urge on the electors of Southland the necessity of making this obnoxious ordinance their watchword, and of electing no Candidate who will not pledge himself to use every effort to ensure its repeal. I am firmly convinced that no measure could be adopted more prejudicial to the welfare of the Province, than the "Annual Value to Let Principle" of the "Roads Ordinance, 18G2." FoscO. June 17, 1863.