OTHER PEOPLE’S IDEAS

Wairarapa Times-Age, 7 September 1943, Page 2

OTHER PEOPLE’S IDEAS

LAND VALLES & LABOUR (To the Editor.) Sir,—ln his broadcast on Saturday night Mr Polson, Deputy Leader of the National Party, in condemning the Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Bill, said that the Bill proposed in assessing the productive value of a farm, to deduct the farmer's wages from the income, before assessment on the 4| per cent basis. Mr Polson said that this was wrong, and should not be done. Now let us see how it works out from Mr Polson’s point of view. Take a one-man farm, with an income of £450, the value on a 41- per cent basis would be £lO,OOO. If the farmer received that, he could invest it on first mortgage at 4| per cent and regain his income of £450 a year (£9 a week), then he could go out to work again at £5 per week and thus be receiving £l4 per week for the same amount of work —very nice indeed. Now, take it on a capital basis from the service man’s and the public’s point of view. Deducting the farmer's wages, say £250 per year, from the income, leaves £2OO per year. This, divided by the 4| per cent, gives the true productive value of the land as £4,400. This leaves a difference of £5,500 as the capitalised value of the farmer’s labour. Thus we are asked to pay £4,400 for the land and £5,500 for the labour, which' the farmer takes with him when he walks off. Yet advocacy of this sort of stuff drew loud applause from Mr Polson’s Stratford audience. What is wrong with our education system, or is this the sort of spirit we are asked to build a new order on? —I am, etc., LAST WAR. Masterton, September 6. CONTROL OF LAND SALES

(To the Editor.) , Sir, —May I be permitted to express in your estimable paper my idea of a method which I think would effectively prevent, or at any rate minimize, exorbitant profits being made by speculators or anyone else, by the sale of land; or houses, and obviate the neces-, sity for the very stringent methods laid down in the recent Servicemen’s Settlement and Land Sales Act? I believe that the existing Arbitration law is already, or could be easily made, applicable to all land sales by simply providing that all land should be offered for sale by intending sellers at a price to be fixed by ordinary arbitration in every case, the buyer and the seller each to appoint an arbitrator, and those arbitrators to appoint an umpire to act in case of disagreement. Such a method would surely satisfy all fair-minded people, and could only be abused by fraudulent collusion, which however’ the parties concerned could guard themselves against with reasonable care.

The extra expense of such arbitration, beyond present costs, would surely be somewhat insignificant as compared with the expenses of Court procedure as required under the new Act. and it seems reasonable to suggest that there would be less delay than would be likely in applications to the Court and official investigations, which would be necessary in every case.

The rehabilitation of service men could, in my humble opinion, be better and quite as fairly attained by this ’method as under the provisions of the new Act, and a great deal of expense would be saved both to the parties concerned and to the general community, which the new Court and committees must entail. It would be interesting to learn why the Government insists upon appointing both arbitrators and umpire (the proposed Court) instead of following the principles of the present Arbitration Act, which I believe provides that each party appoint one, who appoin. an umpire, in case of disagreement. Yours, etc., QUID PRO QUO. Masterton, September 6.