HAMILTON BOROUGH FINANCE.

Waikato Argus, Volume XI, Issue 1030, 24 August 1901, Page 2

HAMILTON BOROUGH FINANCE.

TO THE EDITOR Sir,—-In your issue oi yesterday is a letter from the per of Mr S, Vaile, in which the writer says the reading of the letters by ‘Oherdier’ and A. E. Manning under imprint of August 20th, have caused much amusement; and then Mr Vaile goes on to prophesy chaos in the Hamilton Borough finances as a result of the adoption of rating on unimproved values.

Now, sir, it would be impossible for the Borough Finances to get into a worse tangle than the sentences wh'ch coir pose Mr Vaile’s letter. In the first place, Mr Manning breathed no complaint about rating on unimproved values, but found fault with the Council for impos ing a rate of 3d in the £ when that meant the production of a revenue of £720, whereas a rate of 2Jd would realise an equivalent to the sum raised last year, under the old system, at la 61. * Oberdier 1 did make reference to rating on unimproved values, but was in error when he said the advocates of the m w system said 2d in the £ would realise an equivalent revenue. On the platform, and in the Press, 3d was the sum mentioned ; in fact, I gin given to understand that one of the arguments used at the Borough and Legal and Finance Committee meeting was that as the public were expecting a rale of 3d, it would be foolish to disappoint them, and the money would be well spent in muchneeded street improvements. In his vituperative eagerness to damage tiie cause of rating on unimproved values Mr Vaile * and his memory ’ have got sadly ‘ mixed up 1 as to the relative meaning of Mr Manning’s and ‘ Oberdier’s ’ letters—and instead of the amusement being in Mr Yaile’s favour, it is another ease of ‘’e dunno where 'e are.’ Mr Yaile closes his condemnation by saying that if at the end of these three years the rate is not 4d or 5d Hamilton will be lucky. In his haste to ‘ wollop his phantom,’ Mr Vaile omits to note that Mr Manning stated the new rate of 3d is equivalent to Is 9gd under the old system, and as the Municipal Corporation Act fixes the limit at 2s, Mr Vaile cannot be right in his prognostication. In his third paragraph Mr Vaile says: ‘I gather from your columns, sir, that during the year several new buildings have been erected, but under the system of rating adopted these will not add one single penny to the revenue of either the Borough or the State,’etc. Surely Mr Vaile does'not look upon we country folk as that ‘ sappy 1 that we are not aware that duty has to be paid upon every sheet of corrugated iron, every pound of nails, every gallon of oil, etc., used for building purposes, and if that is not contributing revenue to the State what is ? We also know that if there is increased building it means work for the timber mills and an influx of carpenters, painters, masons, etc., and these men don’t usually sleep under wire fences and live on dreams. No ; they all more or less contribute to the State through the Customs, Extra population means further accommodation, which must necessarily be reflected in greater laud values. Though Mr Vaile did not mean to make the opening, herein lies the difference between Single Tax and rating on unimproved values. Single Tax stands for Free Trade (the admittance of corrugated iron, paints, farmers’ implements, etc. free), and although the ethics of rating on unimproved values may be synonymous with Single Tax there is a vast difference between raising money for local purposes under the rating on unimproved values and abolishing the Customs, etc., and raising all levenue from the land. Many advocates of the one are totally opposed to the other, but naturally all Single Taxers are believers of rating on unimproved values. For Mr Vaile’s iuformation I may scate there are several acres in the Borough, the unimproved value of which is over £I4OO, and one objection only was raised to the valuation of these acres at the recent Assesment Court; further, the population of the Borough at last census was under 1300. If the presence of such a small population creates land veluea like the above, surely iu the event of oar population doubling, the advocate of the system) are justified in looking for a corresponding rise in land values, notwithstanding Mr Vaile’s assertion that ‘ the larger the number of new houses the greater the loss instead of the gain as it ought to be.’ Last census showed a decrease in Hamilton’s population, but if the building at present going on, and in contemplation, is any criterion, we look forward to a large increase when next census is taken, and that feeling is so pronounced that land values are on the up-grude. In closing I would like to ask Mr Vaile, why the champions of the old system did not carry it to a logical conclusion and advocate the taxing of“ what is inside the house as well as the house itself. Thaukiug you in anticipation,— lam. etc., Patriot. Hamilton, August 24th.