Tuapeka Times AND GOLDFIELDS REPORTER AND ADVERTISER. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 6. 1875. "MEASURES, NOT MEN."

Tuapeka Times, Issue 432, 6 February 1875, Page 2

Tuap eka Times AND GOLDFIELDS REPORTER AND ADVERTISER. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 6. 1875. "MEASURES, NOT MEN."

A very important discussion has been going on in the " Cantei Kury Press " for some time past on the assessing of unimproved lands. It seems that the Provincial Council of Canterbury is about as competent as our own in die framing of Ordinances. The Koad Boards Ordinance '* for that Province having been found complex and unworkable, the Chairmen of the several Road Boards met with a view to frame a better. Among other topics this, which we have seen looming in the distance, came up for discussion, viz. : As the rates now fall, they fall mainly on improvements. On the old principle that the land is made to bear in the matter of taxation all that is upon it, no sooner does a man benefittheconntry -by improving his holding, than hs is taxed for his enterprise. He may have all but exhausted his resources, and loaded his property with mortgages, for which risks on his own part the country is profited to a large extent ; — yet it comes and lays an additional burden upon him. His property is revalued, and he is assessed to the full measure of his improvements ; whereas, the man who buys for mere speculation, not to benefit any one but himself, who waits until the active and indus trious have so increased the value of their own property that they have increassd the value of his also, and then sells at greatly increased value, is allowed to go almost scot free, or at a purely nominal assessment. The hardship of the case is greatly enhanced by the fact that roads have in many cases to be made past these unimproved blocks to those that are improved. For these roads the improving settlers, taxed on their improvements, have mainly to pay; and yet, by making the unimproved land accessible, they double or even treble its value in a comparatively short space of time. The idle, but speculative, are thus benefited at the expense of the industrious and enterprising. Looking at the matter from this point of view, Mr W. B. Tosswill proposed a resolution at the meeting above referred to that the land should be assessed for Road B.oard purposes, not according to the value of the improvements, but according to the value of the land us taken by itself. The " Canterbury Press " has strongly opposed the proposed change, and has started all sorts of objections to the alterations. Whether the " Press " is, as alleged bj the other side, acting in the interests of the land monopolists, or honest and unbiassed in its advocacy, we do not stay to determine. We only aver that the scheme is worth looking at. " We scarcely see the force of allowing men, who acquire property, shifting the responsibilities connected with it on others. Nor do we see that any consideration should be shown to absentee and nonim proving proprietors, whoacqnire property for the purpose of benefiting themselves, and do not furnish a fair quota, such as would be determined were they resident and enterprising, towards the support of that Government which guarantees the security of j

the freeholds ; the more especially as they iuterfere with the settlement on the land of those who would be a benefit to the country. Absentees and nonimprovers should be made to bear their fair share of the country's burdens. And this may be reached by some such scheme as Mr. Tosswill has proposed. The men should be taxed who hold freeholds in-land, and dojiot fulfil the obligations that, holding "implies. At the same time it is urged that it is impossible to arrive at that value by any other standard than through the improvements. There is some force in the objection, and yet, we consider, it may be met. Land has a value over and above that which hedges, plantations, residences, &c, give it. Locality, accessibility, richness of soil, convenience to market, &c, give it value independent of these. Let such things be taken into account in the valuation of lands similarly situated; and one great step would be taken towards laying the tax on the land only, and makingtheabsenteeand non-improv-ing equal with the resident improving settler. In a country like Great Britain, the maxim that in matters of taxation the land bear all that is put upon it may be good ; for there, sucfli are the necessities of the population that, as a general rule, land on almost all sides must be improved to its utmost limit , though even there, through parties not co lupreh ending the obliga'Eibns as well as the rights of property, the rule could undergo a modification for the public good. The extensive land owners, who preferred sheep to men, should have been required to pay for their fancy. Such a fancy, in the event of war breaking out, places the country that guarantees the security of their property at a disadvantage for men. And we hold they ought to have had a price put upon their fancy. As 1 we would with these, so do we advocate in the case of non-improvers and absentees that their holdings may be taxed on a principle that will not give them advantage over the industrious resident in the matter of public burdens, but place them at least on an equality with them.