LAND TAXATION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 302, 18 June 1912, Page 6

LAND TAXATION.

To the Editor. Sir, —When I wrote you recently regarding Mr, Geo. Fowlds' address here I had no idea that I was thrusting my- 1 self into such an unequal contest—an ignorant farmer against an experienced statesman—and I am justly punished for my temerity by the crushing communication of Mr. Geo. Fowlds in this morn- i ing's News. Will you allow mo, first of all, to express my regret that Mr. Fowlds should have found "abuse" in my letter, because that is detestable, and if it is there I am quite ready to apologise, but I usually call a spade a spade, not being trained in Parliamentary phraseology. At the same time, when a gentleman goes around the coun- 1 try characterising men of my class as ' "fools," it ill becomes him to complain of "abuse" if we resent it. To deal with my first so-called inaccuracy, Mr. Fowlds states, "Mr. Maunder must have known that it was an additional tax of Id in the £ that I was advocating." A few lines further <lown he writes, "I have never at any time advocated a larger instalment of land value taxation at one I time than I did at New Plymouth, viz., M in the £." How is that for consistency? I was present at your meet- | ing, Mr. Fowlds, and listened with my best attention, but failed to hear the word "additional" because I do not think , you used it, and others agree with me, and, of course, the implication was that : hitherto land paid no dirr-H- tax. I am glad to know that M v Fowlds repudiates land nationalisation, because I thought his affections fluctuated between . that and single tax. However, it is well ' to know where we are. Thanks for the compliment in comparing me to Mr. Massey, though T would like to know ; if it is Mr. Massey the farmer, or the politician. I think Mr. Fowlds is wise to pass over my version of the cause of land values in comparative silence, and to regard it as not "necessary to take further notice" of my statement, but it is not an admission that the increased land values have not been created by the occupiers—an erroneous , premise on which he erects the equally ' erroneous result that "it ia surely n reasonable claim which we make that the whole community should participate < in the increased land values given to the lands of our country by social and scientific progress." Now, Sir, what is this "social and scientific progress ?" Apart from the human element, is it not rather the modern expression of the activity, mental and physical, of the human race, and so, if boiled down, I means the outcome of the exertions of I the town and country land workers, so much decried in the preceding paragraph of Mr. Fowlds' letter. If not, what is it ? Please excuse a little personal reference. I have been a typical pioneer farmer all my days. Several times I have moved back with my axe and spade on my shoulder to carve out a new home. I did not do it for the public good, but for my own private advantage, though I should have done betI ter if I had never owned one acre of i land, but where did the "community" | come in to help me ?• Echo answers, j "Where!" I never found the "community" there first. Not a bit of it; but ■ after I had made a track through the ; fern or bush and gradually took off the [ roughest side of things,, then the "comI munity" began to look in. What for? My good? Oh, no; but to make a profit. For whom? For me? Oh, dear no; for himself, of course. Well, then, to share with me, I suppose? No, I ! could go to Ilowick or the bankruptcy ■court. What was his'n was his'n, as we used to say in the school playground. Again, Sir, for many long and weary years we "fools," as Mr. Fowlds elegantly termed us, were on a bad wicket, falling markets and falling farmers. Where was the "community" then? I Clamouring for a share of our losses 1 They had a more accurate knowledge of political economy than that, as Mr. Fowlds eloquently puts> it. Well, a little less political economy and a little more practical honesty would suit me better. I have to acknowledge with more or less shame to much lack of knowledge of the Mosaic times as well as modern political economy, but I shall be happy to sit at his feet for instruction in these subjects if he will undertake to establish his theories by such methods as are suitable to my mental ! calibre, and not expect me to soar with \ him into the unknown on the wings of .' philosophic platitudes. Let me say in ) conclusion that I do not own a single foot of land, and so have no interest or axe to grind. I simply stand for a fair deal for the land worker; not for the land speculator.—l am, etc., N. T. MAUNDER. New Plymouth, June 17.