The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, JULY 4, 1889. PROPERTY TAX.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1912, 4 July 1889, Page 2

The Temuka Leader THURSDAY, JULY 4, 1889. PROPERTY TAX.

The Property Tax promises to prove the piece, de resistance in Parliament. The attack on it has been lead by Mr Barron, of Otago, with the most foolish proposal that has ever been made to the House. Praotically his proposal is to do away with the Property Tax altogether, and effect retrenchment to an extent that will equal the loss thus sustained by the revenue. This may go down with the yokels who have sent euch a noodle as Mr Barron to represent them in Parliament, but sensible men will feel sick at heart at finding the making of our laws and the government of the country in the handa oi persons capable of making such idiotic proposals. In his recent speech to his constituents, Mr Fergus, the Minister of Justice, showed how impossible such a proposal as this is. He said that, exclusive of country postmasters, who get from £5 to £2O a year, the cost of the Public Service is as nearly as possible £1,000,000 per annum. Of this £1,000,000 £650,000 goes to pay the railway employees, and it is very well known that retrenchment has been effected in that department of the service already to the uttermost possible extent. There is no room for further retrenchment in the Railway Department, unless the Government resort to " sweating-system" wages, and then, after paying railway employees, there is left of the £1,000,000 only £350,000. This £350,000 goes to pay our police, gaolers, magistrates, judges, postmasters, telegraphists, and all civil servants. The amount which i was received last year from the Property Tax is £353,000, so that if we abolished the Property Tax, without raising revenue from some other source to put in its place, we should actually have to dismiss every man m the Public Service, from the Premier down to the humble postman who delivers our letters to us. That, therefore, settles the question of being able to do without the revenue from the Property Tax by effecting retrenchment. The thing is a moral impossibility. Too much of this has been done in the past. Too frequently in past years complaisant Treasurers have carried on the business of the colony with borrowed money instead of paying their way with revenue raised by taxation. The consequence now is that our debt has grown to dimensions which have frightened many, and that taxation has proportionately increased. All Colonial Treasurers have been guilty of this. They seemed to vie with each other in imposing as little taxation as possible, and borrowing as much as they could. This was altogether a mistaken policy. If the country decided ten years ago to pay more taxation then, they would have far less taxation to pay at present. The man, therefore, who now attempts to reduce taxation must be regarded as an enemy to every class, because he cannot under any circumstances do it without sinking the country deeper and deeper into debt. Recently we showed that instead of a surplus the present Colonial Treasurer had a deficit of over £20,000. If he were now to reduce the Property Tax by one-half, h© would have a deficit of about £IOO,OOO next year. This, as in past years, would be added to our debt, and in a very abort time our liabilities would become so enormous that we could not bear them. Last year Sir Harry Atkinson found that deficits like this had accumulated to the tune of £528,000. He added £400,000 of that to our debt, and put on the primage duty to pay off the other £128,000. We have had too much of that sort of financing, and it is far better for us to face the difficulty now, and pay our way, than let our indebtedness outgrow our strength. To try to reduce taxation at present is out of the question, and, therefore, if the Property Tax ,is to be j abolished some other impost must' take its place. We have not the slightest doubt but that the Property Tax is very objectionable, but so is every kind of taxation. We cannot see how matters could be improved by abolishing the Property Tax and putting on a Land and Income Tax. There are few in this colony in receipt of a certain income. We are not like people in the Old Country, who are in receipt of so much a year from rents payable to them by.tenants, from annuities, and so ferth. The incomes of most men in this colony are of a very precarious nature; it is very often that they make losses instead of making incomes, and consequently it does not appear to us that such an impost would produce revenue or prove satisfactory. With regard to a Land Tax, we have hitherto opposed it, but the shameless manner ia which large land-owners and companies are resisting all attempts at settlement has brought us to the very door of accepting it. Land, of course, can be as easily taxed, as at present, but it would not yield sufficient revenue. The conclusion we have arrived at is that to attempt a , change at present would be extremely risky. The change would be extremely expensive. It would create great confusion, and we feel certain the result would be disappointing. The Stout - Vogel Ministry in 1885 proposed to exempt ,

from taxation £3OOO worth of agricultural implements and £3OOO worth of machinery. This would relieve industry of taxation, and that is what is wanted. In our opinion that is the best proposal that has ever been submitted to Parliament, and it would give us infinite pleasure to support it if brought forward again. «. MR BALLANCE. j The attack made on Mr Ballance in i the Timaru Herald yesterday morning j is really enough to tempt us to reply i in language more vigorous than polite. It says that Mr Ballance was guilty of treachery to Sir George Grey; that he ' { is a political weathercock, inasmuch ' as that he was once a Freetrader, and is now a Protectionist; and that his land policy in the fetout-Vogel Ministry was " rotten." In all this there is not a scintilla of truth. Mr Ballance never was guilty of treachery to Sir George Grey. It is true he left Sir George Grey's Ministry, but so did Sir Eobert Stout and almost every Minister Sir George had with him, because they found it impossible to agree with him. As regards being a Freetrader 12 years ago, in 1877, so was every man in Now Zealand then. It is within the last five years that the people of New Zealand have begun to think that it is better for them to develope their own resources than allow them to lie dormant. Bat to what extent was Mr Ballance a Freetrader then ? He took off the duty on tea and sugar, and some other things which we could not produce locally, and put the tax on beer. Is that Freetrade ? Most undoubtedly it is not. Mr Ballance would . take the duty off tea now if he could. There is not a more consistent thoroughgoing party man in New Zealand than Mr Ballance, aad there is no one else in the House fit to lead. Sir Robert Stout is undoubtedly a better leader than Mr Ballance, because he is more pushing, more energetic, and more aggressive. If any one hits Sir Robert Stout he will get in return more than he bargained for. Mr Ballance, on the other hand, has too much of the suaviter in vwdo, and too little of the fortiter in re in him for a leader. We are not sure that he is not a more judicious and careful statesman, if not an abler one, than Sir Robert Stout, but he has not the latter's go, vigor, and physical powers. Sir Robert Stout is too ready to let the world know what he thinks, and very often he thinks things which the world has not been educated to understand. Mr Ballance is more discreet, and seldom or never falls into such errors.

When Mr Ballance was Colonial Treasurer he produced the most intelligible and comprehensive financial statement ever laid before Parliament. Friend and foe alike praised him for that. His actions as Minister of Lands are of a recent date, and well-known to everybody, yet the Timaru Herald does not blush to say his policy was " rotten." If it was, why is it that petitions are being sent to Parliament from Dunedin and Auckland, praying for a renewal of it ? Why also is it that the Minister of Lands, though a pronounced enemy, has had to admit that village settlements were a success P And why is it that the great majority of settlers are adopting the perpetual leasing instead of the freehold system? If Mr Ballance's policy was " rotten " why is it that the whole country shows itself favorable to it. The present Minister of Lands has done his best to stamp under foot the seed planted by Mr Ballance, but it is growing in spite of him. It would not do so if it had been " rotten." We have no objection to opposition; it is only right and proper that the two Bides of qu§stions should be ventilated, but we do really object to seeing absolute groundless falsehoods put before the country as facts. Everyone knows that Mr ; Ballance is not treacherous; that he does not shift from one side of the House to the other, and that he has been extremely successful as an administrator, and it is useless for the Herald to try to persuade people to the contrary. As to the charge of insincerity, when he was Colonial Treasurer he toek the duty off tea and sugar to relieve the poor of taxation. When he was Minister of Lands he settled more poor men in homes of their own than all the previous Ministers put together, and yet we i are told he is insincere, treacherous, ! and inconsistent. His sincerity, his devoted attachment to the interests of the poor, has brought upon him the wrath of the wealthy, but he has bravely defied them, and he is still, as he always ; was, helping the cause that lacks assistance. We congratulate the Liberal party on their choice of leader, and the colony on the prospect of having him as its Premier.