SOCIALIST MUNICIPAL POLICY

Taranaki Daily News, 24 December 1920, Page 10 (Supplement)

SOCIALIST MUNICIPAL POLICY

MUNICIPAL TRADING LOSSES. PUT IT ON TO THE BATES. (Contributed by Welfare League.) The only political party jn New Zealand that contests municipal elections ia the socialist party that goes under the name of "The New Zealand Labor Party." It has several representatives on the borough, councils, and it is pertinent to ask what is the municipal trading policy of this party? One of i their delegates to the Wellington City Qouncil, Councillor J. Hutchison, has indicated what their policy is. In discussing tramway affairs at a council meeting he said: 'There were two sources of revenue open to the management—the taxing of property or the increasing of fares. He favors the former, as the latter system had the i boomerang effect of decreasing traffic. That pronouncement is in;harmony with the following declaration in the English . "Labor Leader," a socialist journal. "The call upon the local rates will increase proportionately as the community's right over that of private property right is accepted." Now, it is : the socialist view that private property should be largely done away with and that entails tlio practice of putting evtm greater and greater burdens on the local ratepayers. If a trading service does not pay its way put the loss on to the i rates. If the tramway undertaking is short of revenue tax the property owners to make up the revenue. That is the socialist doctrine, and it would be well for the people to consider what it leads to. IS IT HONEST AND SOUND i BUSINESS? There are three questions that arise on this proposition of ''put it on the rates." (1) Is it honest to tax people for tramway service, whether they are using same or not? (2) Is it sound economically? (3) Who would pay the tax? Without agreeing with Councillor Hutchison's dictum that the question of tramway management, as far as revenue is concerned, is purely one of increasing fares or increasing rates, we are yet of opinion that a public trading service should be made to pay its way by charging direct to the users the adequate cost of the service that is given to them. We fail to see that it is just or right to make a man pay for tramway transport if, or when, he is not using such servic?. It does not seem to us in any way honest business for a corporation'to say to people who are using the trams we charge you so much for this serv ce and then turn to the property holder anl say we 'charge you so much not because you are using the trams hue because we are short of revenue and you have property we can tax. The doctrine looks like confiscation What do you think? In the second place, It is surely bad business economy to rely on general taxation for revenue to support a trading venture for the reason that it opens the door wide to temptation towards laxity of management. Why go to great pains to secure full ordinary revenue and prevent waste and leakages if any deficit can be made up by the simple process of "taxing the ratepayers" is the pernicious idea that would grow like a cancer under the practice of such a doetrine. WHO PAYS THE RATES? It apparently did not strike Councillor Hutchison that if raising fares has the boomerang effect of decreasing traffic .that taxing property must have the effect of increasing rent. The strange notion that the ratepayers are a lot of wealthy capitalists wlio deserve to be squeezed is what deludes these red advocates. Investigation shows that the majority of ratepayers are simply wage earners, and a little thought should convince anyone that the people as a whole pay the rates, either directly or indirectly. The only differences "between maintaining a tramway service by fares and out of rates ig that in the former case people pay direct for what they get, and in the latter the property owners who reside in, or use their own property pay twice over, when they nee the tram's and when they do not. In other cases Iresidents would pay both when using the trams and indirectly, also through [rent and prices. The people Who would come off most lightly would be the visitors, who are neither property holders or residents, and those to bo hit hardest would be the thousands of small property holders who by years of toil have acquired their own little homes. That is surely a strange objective for "Labor."