RATING ON THE UNIMPROVED VALUE.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 March 1919, Page 6

RATING ON THE UNIMPROVED VALUE.

To the Editor Sir,—This is a question much talked about in our particular part of Taranaki at the present moment. It is supposed to be a grand way for the poor man to get "up sides down" with the rich. I am well aware that there are many auspicious arguments, all ready made, and very easily let loose in support of it. Big names also can be quoted as having approved of the principle in theory and in practice, and yet, I fear me, that it is quite possible that the poor man may hit himself and his brothers instead of the rich neighbor at whom he aims. Suppose, for instance, that 1 have a four or six-roomed cottage on a quarter of an acre in a good locality, and suppose that alongside of my cottage there is a big store, warehouse, factory,.hotel, picture show, theatre or a mansion-boardinghouse doing a firstclass business, the frontages being equal, my contribution to the upkeep of the streets of the town would be equal to that of the owner of the big concern next door. To the big warehouse, store, factory, etc., a constant stream of spring carts, waggons and motors would be coming and going all day for six l days a week, and it would cost the owner no more than it did me, who had not a single vehicle in any shape or form on the streets at all. His rates and my rates are equal, and he can be making a huge fortune out of his business, and I am paying as much out of my poor wages to keep the streets in proper order to maintain his traffic as he is, and that is supposed to be hitting the rich for the benefit of the poor! Why. Sir-, it is the poor man who is being hit. If a poor man wishes to heap burdens on the top of his own poorness, let him by all means vote for rating on the unimproved value. But if the said poor man wants the rich man to pay for what the rich man has, and is getting, then let him vote for the present system; for under it wealth pays in proportion to its bulk, and poorness in proportion to its property and no more. The local body must have its rates, and it will require more as time goes on, as expenses are increasing every year; therefore, if you relieve from taxation the improvements of a locality, you are relieving the wealth-making properties at the expense of the non-wealth-making properties of that locality, and as the non-wealth-making properties mainly belong to the poor the poor man's rates will be more, rather than less, under the proposed system.—l am, etc' J. 0. TAYLOR. Lepperton, March 24, 1919,