LAND CONFERENCE.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXIV, Issue 39, 9 October 1912, Page 5

LAND CONFERENCE.

AGAINST SINGLE TAX

(By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright

(United Press Association.)

London, October 8. At the land conference Mr. Outhwaite claimed that Mr. Asquith limited the political power of the aristocracy, and was going to limit their economic power. The speech met with a mixed reception. Mr. Arnold Lupton appealed to the conference not to commit themselves to a policy which would wreck the Liberals. (Cries of “We will risk it.”). Mr. Lloyd George will speak at Swindon on October 2G in response to a memorial from ton thousand agricultural labourers. Mr. Lambert, speaking at Chawleigh, Devon, ridiculed the single tax. He”stated that Mr. Lloyd George had authorised him to state that there was not the remotest possibility of his liecoming a single-taxor. Moreover, ho did not believe that lie could regenerate agriculture by taxing it. He had entered the land enquiry with a view to lessening the burdens upon progressive cid ti vato rs. OTHER INCREMENT THAN LAND. Writing in a London paper against single tax, Mr. R. C. K. Ensor says: The value of all properties, whether in land or capital, the increment of all incomes, whether from land or from capital, is in part created by the community. Yon cannot take land or any other one source of income, and say: “The community created the entire value of that, and created no other value; therefore the community should appropriate the entire income from that, and tax no other income whatever.” Such a course is inequitable, because, however neat it sounds, it corresponds to no facts whatever. Roughly, it appears true that the bigger”’au income is, the bigger the share of the community in rendering it possible to he received. This is whv a stiffly graduated income tax is not only humane but just. It not only puts the burden on the shoulders best able to hear it, but it tends most to recover for the community the wealth which the community has created. 13©vnnd this general principle it is very difficult to go. I am doubtful, even, whether the distinction established by Mr. Asquith between “earned” and “unearned” incomes is altogether beneficent. Persons living on wholly or mainly “unearned’ incomes cf £soo’ a voar or loss are not often able-bodied idle men. They are the widow, the orphan, the aged, and the invalid; and until collective provision is made for such non-producers I am not sure'whether private provision for them needs to ho specially curtailed. Nor is if wise to erect a graduated income tax into a single tax. There is numb to be said for taxes on luxuries, and also for taxes intended to stimulate no me special social or economic change. It is under the last bead that T should find the true argument for a reasonable tax on land values. Something may be effected, by it towards driving unused or badly' used End into fuller and better use. Mr. Lloyd George’s tax on unbuilt urbane! land was of this type. Our present system often works right the; other way; the exemption of unoccupied bouses from rates, for instance, is a direct encouragement'to Ihhdlords to hold up “emp ties” speculatively. But anythingdaim in tlusyvifv bjy taxingTaud valvms c’uld be much -more- thoroughly done through the acouisition and ownership of lend by piiblid4htliorities.