The Daily News. FRIDAY, JUNE 4. LAND VALUATION FOR TAXATION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LII, Issue 109, 4 June 1909, Page 2

The Daily News. FRIDAY, JUNE 4. LAND VALUATION FOR TAXATION.

lie "improve value," the- !,„ s i s for state valuation, is what the owner'* uaincumbered interest in tile laud valued might bo expected to realise at the

<inio the valuation is made, if oft'erei tor sale on audi reasonable terms am conditions as n lioiin-tide seller might b expected to require. Tlie method ti valuation appears to be fair. A hm uvniT would expect the highest prie realisable for his property. Ho woul not consider, when selling, say by pub lie auction, tint I probably the buyer wa gi\ing more than tlii? janfl ivas wort! for purposes of production, and that li was thus overburdening himself.. Thou" one injustice docs not warrant auothei itnd, if it .be possible to conceive u mur equitable plan for valuation by i/ie rax ation Dejmrliuent such a jjlan shoul be adopted., yet if thy Slate .should no tux on an excessive value, neither shout a hind owner exact the uttermost fartii ing for his laud. According to the wa, of the world, it seems to be quiu- jus that a land owner should be taxed o the value which he himself pats on hi land. If (says a southern exchange land owners were in the Uabit of sellm at a value based on productive capacity then their case would be irresistioi whep they appeal for considvnuio against the exactions of the State Tax ation Department. As it is, the lan owner has an appeal to the Asscssmen Court, and, if not -satisfied with tha tribunal's treatment, may take hi grievance to the {Supreme Court, i'im is more than the man who wants lan and can only get it at an extravagan price can do. lie, has no remedy bu to pay the land seller what he may di maud or what is Jixed by feverish bid ding at auction, and then he must pa, taxation on that extravagant pne«. This exposes the rank injustice 01 tn system of land taxation, as it now us ists, It is not in accordance with th principles of Liberalism, though it 1 quite in keeping, it must be confesset with the laws of competition and coin luercc, which justify every man gettin as much as lie can and giving as littl as possible. Those who plead agains the land tax assessments ought nol however, to be treated in a nr.tmie which harmonises with the principle they themselves practice and light foi but consistently with the principle which the dominant political party pri •fesses. It is as wrong to insist on taxa tion on inllatcd values as it is to exac for land more than it is worth, an those who denounce extortion should b the last to practice it, even agains those who themselves extort. "We hav not forgotten that iu addition to resor to the arbitrament of two Courts, o: the first of which landowners have representative, a land owner has tii right to call upon tile .State to take hi property at his own valuation, and, i the .State does not agree to do this, t/n valuation must be reduced to that madi by the owner. But the Appealing t< court-s -costs time and money, and tin owner of a property would, naturalh enough, rather pay taxation on an in Hated valuation than abandon his home so that the provision which entitles a land-owner to call upon the State to reduce a valuation to his estimate or take his property at his valuation is not likely to be brought into operation, it will be seen .that, as a last resource, a land owner has no alternative but to accept a price for his land based on his own lower valuation, or submit to the State's taxation on its higher one; so that, though the provision appear* to be equitable, it is on tile one-sided principle—■" Heads 1 win, tails you h'sel" It has been suggested that a representative ot* farmers in every locality should be appointed to act with the State valuer in making the valuations in that locality. Hut. such an appointee would I necessarily be overruled by the State's I officers, who would not be compelled to i accept his opinions any more than he 1 would those of the owners. The most | perfect system of land taxation would ! be one which bases the valuation on the productivity of land; but it is not so easy to ascertain and fix this as it is to assess the market value. Actual results at the time cannot -be relied upon as a guide. There are farmers who work their farms cleverly ami judiciously, whilst others take all they <un get out of their land, and that is often not much. Because a farmer is energetic and careful, should he be taxed at a higher rate than the fellow who is not'/ If land is to be taxed upon its value to produce, the decision must ne arbitrary, and there would consequently be perpetual complaints that the valuations were lixvd too high. Jf the Farmers' I'jiions have any suggestion to make calcinated to solve the difficulty, it would be worthy of respect. Those who feel the hardship imposed by the existing system of valuation, and who have necessarily considered the question with especial care, should be able to make the wisest recommendations in regard to it. It is, however, useless to allege that the Government instructs its valuers to keep up values, or that it could instruct them to keep valuations down. The Govern-1 nient has no right to interfere, in the I smallest degree, with valuations for tax-! ation purposes. It can readily be imagined that such interference might lead to accusations of partiality or'vindictiveness, which it would be difficult to disprove.