Mr R. Stout on the Property Tax.

Thames Star, Volume X, Issue 3415, 2 December 1879, Page 3

Mr R. Stout on the Property Tax.

Tho following letter from Mr R. Stout on tho mode of operation of the property tax appears in the Otaiio Daily Times :— " Will the tax tend to encourage thrift amongst the people? It will be observed that from the gross value of the property a man holds there is to be deducted the amounts of the debts lie owes. Let me tako two cases. T!>e one is n deferred payment holder. By law ho in not allowed to mortgage his land ; and even supposing his personal properly is pledged by bill of sale, or mortgage oa stock, sill lie is, as compared with a neighbour of his free from debt. I assume thnt the value of his land is £500, he having some payments yefc to make to the Government, and ufter deducting his debts from the value of" iiis stock, farm implements and furniture &c, there is a balance of £200 to tho good. Under the proposed property tax he will have to pay £1 13s 4d. His neighbour near him holds 5000 acres, whilst he only holds 200 acres ; but his neighbour has uot improved his land. He hus some sheep on it, and a suegbcrd'a hut or two, aud woolshed &c, but little or uoue of it has

been ploughed. His noi-Mumr »\so bt.ughUin hind when l.'.'.n t'c.-.-t!'-!, 1-!''- 1- 1 ••«>«-{ banks wove- pressing peoplo to h.imnv, ami if his neighbour's taml ami sheep wcm-o sold tomorrow they would no! meat the niortg-iges on tiiom. By the proposed property t;ix this holder of 5000 acres of iand pays nothing, while his ncijfhbonr—tho deferrrd-payment holder —lins, out of his small incomo and profits, to pay the Tivnsnrer £1 X).< 4-I—as much, perhaps, ns his road rules amount fo. jJn!,, ihtMi. the ' si-heiiitt is hold ami honest,' and, therefore, do for red-payment holder, you must pay, whilst your £5000 nere holder *\wpes I liii ' fair tax!' And how will it stand with struggling city tradesmen ? I suppose to shopkeepers. One is heavily indebted—so heavily, indeed, that 'ho may remark, as one remarked tho other day to me, 'If 1 cannot prove that I owe as much as I own, I am not much nt figures.' Under this beneficent system ho'p£»?s nothing. His neighbor, whom he is underfilling, however, is not in ds'bt, mid he has to pay the-tax on the value of ltis stock-in-trode. Lot mo give two examples. One man has put his all —,€3oo9—in a. business. This is Ins capital, and on it ho has to pay the lax. His competitor in the same business has no capital. He has advances from perhaps a merchant, in Glasgow, but as he has staffed business without capital, the Government say to him: 'You are to escape taxation. And wo warn you'—-I can fancy tho Treasurer continuing : 'if you are ever foolish enough to save anything in this colony we shall immediately tax you. As lone, however, as you remain in debt, and live up to, if not beyond, jour means, we Hi ink it proper, in order to benefit struggling city tradesmen, in encourage you in your extravagant career, find hence we free you from taxation!' If it be said that the person in debt will have to pay interest on the debt he owes, I reply a person who invests his capital in business also expects interest, aud therefore that will not prevent him to undersell— to tho amount of the tnxr-the careful, saving, and frei'-from-debt tradesmen. That, therefore, which required the encourage-, raent of the Government —the saving habit, and which the Government Life Assurance system and Savings Bank were supplied' to promote —is, by this property tax discouraged. Let nic give two more examples: How is the land speculator affected ? Suppose a ense of a speculator who has bought '500 acres of laud. . He has done nothing with it save mortgage it to almost the full amount of its value. By this proposed property tax ha would pay nothing, whilst the holder of the 500 acres alongside of him who has improved his land, erected a dwelling house and farm buildings and fences, will have to pay a heavy tax, perhaps double his road rates and county tax. But then the tax is put on in the interests of the ' pioneer settler,' and therefore he must not grumble. And thus" will the ' pioneer settler ' discover that a Conservative Government, whilst anxious to.pvoraote his interests, must look after the welfare of the speculator. For if it did not, what would its supporters say ? T« not the land speculator one of the ' poorer classes ? ' Let mo contrast the existing land tnx as effecting speculators in land. "Under it the owner of the land, whether it was mortgaged or not. and whether it was improved or not, paid the same. The ' pioneer, settler ' would not, therefore, have to pny more than the land"speculator. Both paid on the value of their land. If he did not improve on his land he did not thereby escaped taxation, and the 1 Liberals ' —foolish people—did not think the colony would be benefited by telling colonists. The more you mortgage your land the less burdens on it you will have to pay. Their advice was not, Get into debt—that is the highest ideal of si good colonist; but it wan only. Purchase the quantity of land you can use. and if you do, and go on improving it, we will "not tax you on your improvements.''