SINGLE TAX. WHO WILL PAY IT?

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10701, 23 August 1912, Page 5

SINGLE TAX. WHO WILL PAY IT?

(To tlio .Editor.) Sir, —Leaving aside any <'«usideratioii of the merits or demerits of tho kind proposals embodied in Ilia Hon. George Fowlds' exposition of the planks of -tlie U. L. Parity which yoti ably criticised in last Monday morning's paper, I would like ;.o remark that I was much interested in a doe--1 trine which vou propounded rn regard to tho operations of a land tax, on the linos suggested by the single taxers Hitherto it has been an accepted axiom by those who have made poetical economy a study, tknt a tax upon land, if not accompanied by n. corresponding return in tlio shape of utilities, hits the landowner proportionately to the' value of |tho tax in question. In stating, as you did, in- Monday's leading article, that the landlord lias the power of passing this tax on to. ■ his tenant, you repudiate the teachi ings 011 this point of Adam Smilfch,. i Ricardo, Mill, Fawcett, and other accredited teachers ctf the 'dismal ec;- [ ence.' | Not only do you run counter to tho , dicta of the 'economists in question, J but 'the opinion you expressed, does j not tally with the common experience ( of those who have dealing in land. Any | land agent would tell you that while a landlord usually insists,'as one of tho conditions when leasing 'his land, for any iterm, that- the tenant shall pay all taxes and rates thereon ; the would-be tenant, on theother hand, if ordinarily shroAvd, acquaints himself vrith. the sum tha<fc these represent; and accordingly pays a rent, which indirectly comp?ls the landlord to hear tho burden which ho intended to impose.

I Rent is not a thing 'entirely dc- ■ pendent on the whim of the landlord, i The tenant has an important say in , the matter. To state that the former , can pile on rent at big/own sweet will ( to meet the exigencies of a land tax, j is to imply that the economic law of supply and demand has no place fit business where land is concerned. But this implication is wrong, for the land(lord will find no supply of tenants j when he proceeds with hie exactions to a point- where their inability to pay, i is. reached. And wliat. profit to him would rack-renting be if it resulted in' the increase of untenanted properties? In Wednesday's issue you quote Masterton as an argument in support of your opinions j 'but you ignore the fact' that the ever-increasing taxes of this town have for the most part been returned in the shape of various utilities, which have greatly increased the value of land, in the business portion of it, justifying land ownerg in demanding and obtaining higher rentals. Tf the landlord has the power to raiso rents when economic conditions do not justify him, why in this ago of grab - does he permit big rents to remain below the level of his utmost exactions?

You state and imply that a onepenny in tlie pound tax, which practically amounts to an. appropriation of 8-J- per cent of his land, will make the landowner no poorer. Why then Is he shrieking, here and elsewhere, at the possibility of a land tax, on the lines of Mr Fowlds and his party? Simply } sir, because ho. knows he will he hit, as surely as the landlords of Old England were once hit by the old system, of tithes,-, and the present poor rates.

It is evident that in your search for truth, you have made wide excursions into the dim recesses of some of our •aibatract sciences, when you are in a position to allude to the 'economist'!?' as supporting your opinion. Your discovery is worthy of a greater publicity than you have so far given it. It would be a real service to others besides mysef if lthe identity of eomo of these alleged 'economists' were revealed. I hardly think you will mention Adam Smith or John G. Mill. Jtic.irdo—famous for his doctrine of renfc —can be of little use to you. And as for Faweett, he-distinctly states in Chapter 111. in his "Political Economy for Beginners," "It may be generally stated that all taxes which are levied on hind, such as the land' tax, the tithe and the poor rates, really fall on the owner of the land. If these charges are in the first instance paid by the tenant he pays so much less rent. -If he ceases to pay the tax, }ii« rent is increased. A reduction of the poor rate on-land, therefore, is- no permanent or direct, benefit to the tenant, as at the fit-it opportunity, his rent will be raised by a sum corresponding to the amount of taxation of which he hns been relieved.".—l am, etc.,

J. COLWAY. Masterton, August 21st, 1912. (The authorities quoted by cur corespondent prove that tho land tax cannot be passed on in rural districts. They do not however, prove the impossibility of pawing it on in. the citiefl. Indeed, were they to attempt such a thing they would find themselves hard up against ' known facts. Our correspondent will find that his authorities do not support tho theory of taxation on land values.— Ed. Age.)