The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, JUNE 4, 1887. PROGRESSIVE PROPERTY TAX.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1590, 4 June 1887, Page 2

The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, JUNE 4, 1887. PROGRESSIVE PROPERTY TAX.

Ihb present struggle is between the rich and the poor. The proposal of the Government to rearrange the Property Tax so that the monopolists and moneyrings shall contribute to the revenue in proportion to the benefit they receive is the cause of alt the excitement. The Government propose that persons owning properly worth not more than £2500 shall enjoy the exemption of £SOO as at present, and be subject on the balance to the present tax oj thirteensixteenths of a penny. Properties valued at over £2500 shall pay on the whole sum one penny in the £. The meaning of this is that persons whose valuations do not exceed £2500 will only have to pay a tax of thirteen-sixteenths of a penny on £2OOO, because they get an exemption of £SOO, while a man whose property is valued at £SOOO must pay a Property Tax of one penny in the £ on the whole sum, because he gets no exemption at all. Now tbe question the public have to consider is, Is this fair ? The reasons given in the Financial Statement are that if tbe £SOO exemption were removed 21,591 taxpayers would have to pay 88,1 per c-mt. more than they pay now, that is, for every £IOO these 21,591 people pay at present they would have to pay £IBB if the exemption were removed, while 6,235 owners of large property would only have to pay an increase of 8.8 per cent., or £lO3 for every £IOO they pay now. If the policy of the Atkinson party, who want to do away with the exemption of ±,500 altogether, were adopted the tax on these 21,591 poor taxpayers would have been doubled, while tbe rich taxpayers would jog along comfortably, paving only an increase of 8 per cent. Is it wonderful therefore that the rich taxpayers are combining together strenuously to oust from power those who have for the first time in the history of tbe colony made an honest attempt to shift responsibility on the proper.shoulJersf It appears to us that there is still a stronger argument in favor of tbe proposed advantage being given to the poorer tax-payers. Every man, woman, and child contributes to the revenue through the Customs about £2 12s each per annum, and it appears to us that when a poor m«n with a large family has paid this amount on behalf of all bis children he has contributed his share fairly and honestly towards governing the country, and is entitled to exemption. The general average of families is seven, and therefore the head of a family contributes £lB 4s a year to tbe revenue—that is, if bis family consumes tbs average amount of goods which have paid Customs duties—and if he does not pay for the £SOO exemption he gets in that way he goes very near it. Now, let us take the question from an industrial standpoint. We know an industry in Temuka worth about £IOOO which gives employment to 8 hands, and dependent on these are 8 others. Thus 16 persons have to get their living out of this poor little industry, and these 16 people pay through the Customs about £4l 12s, and about £1 12s Property Tax a year, if they use tbe average amonnt of Customs duties. Take now a money-lender, for instance, who has lent £SOOO on interest. At one penay in the £ he pays £2O 16s 8d Property Tax, and, say, his family is an average one of seven, he pays £lB 4s through tbe Customs. Thus the £IOOO industry contributes to the revenue £43 4s, although it has an exemption of £SOO, while the moneylender, who has £SOOO invested, and who has no exemption at all, contributes only £39 0s Bd. This shows tbe great advantage of industrial development. This poor little industry gives 16 persons a living, and contributes to tbe revenue enormously. Supposing now that the eight men employed in this industry were men of average families, as is frequently the case, they would thus contribute lo the revenue £147 4s, while the money-lender who has £SOOO lent at 10 per cent aontributes on y £39 0s Bd. Then look at the advantages which the owners of large properties have gained from tbe public works. Have they not enhanced their value tenfold, and should not they therefore be called upon to contribute to the revenue in proportion to the benefits they have received f On these grounds we think the progressive Property Tax is fair, hut it is evident that those whom it does affect de not agree with us. This is the real question that has disturbed politics at the present time. Major Aikinson saw in this a splendid opportunity to Appeal to the cupidity of the rich and powerful, and he was right, lor the money-rings and monopolists have so far carried the day. In the Legislative Council they showed their teath. The Government d>d pot want to pass the Repression Rill untjd the House bad granted them njopey 1,0 cayry on the Government of (the country for sij months. As a matter of courtesy it Js usual for the Opposition to grant sup? plies at once, but on this occasion every obstacle was thrown in the way with the view of embarrassing the Government, Both parties are trying; to work their)

nvfD point. The Government want to pet sufficient time to define the boundaries of the new electoral districts under the new Representation Act, and as they do not know bow long it will tske they ask to be allowed to the first of October before calling together the next Parliament. They have another object in this; they want time to explain to tha people their policy. This is exactly what the monopolists do not want, and consequently they are trying to pet the elections hurried through at a rate that will not give the people time to reflect on the proposals of the Government. To assist the parly in furthering this the Council on last Wednesday night passed the Representation Bill into law in spite of the Government, and thus the most extraordinary action was taken that baa ever been heard of. It has no precedent in the history of representative institutions, and it is unique io parliamentary tactics. The Government are trying to shift its share of the taxation of the country on to the shoulders of those who can afford it, and to let the poorer classes off as easily as possible, and it is to be hoped that when the question is put to the people they will give an unequivocal answer to it.