Rating on Unimproved Value.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume III, Issue 62, 23 October 1900, Page 2

Rating on Unimproved Value.

On Saturday afternoon a meeting was held in the County Council Chambers, to oonsider the question of Rating on Unimproved Value ia Waimate County. So well attended was the meeting that the Council Hall was Scarcely large enough. Mr Dodgla&, chairman of the County Council, presided, and addressed the meeting. He explained that the meeting was not called by tho Council, but was convened solely at the wish of a number of ratepayers, who wished to, find out how they would be affected by the adoption of the proposed system of rating. On this question, us oa any other where the benefit accruing to one can bo bad only at the expense of another, th^ro were many conflicting opinions and assertions expressed. Although the '"Waih.io Downs Estate would be a gainer if the Eating on Unimproved Value System were adopted, he, as chairman of the County Conncil, wished it to be distinctly understood that he did not want to influence the issue. Still, the rate payers would h*we a bettor idea as to how they were personally affected, & f tev they were in possession of the facts he had before him. As all wore aware, the capital value of all property, that is, the value of the land with improvements added, was takan oa the basis of the present system •of rating* while the present proposal la to tax only the unimproved value, or the land without improvements. According to Government valuation, the capital value of the county is £2,449,811, and the Unimproved value £2,088,004. Under the present Ratiug Act, the county may be rated up to l^d in the £ on the Capital Value, but the rate in the county for many years had not cached half of that. The present rate of eleven-sixteenths of a penny in the £ yielded something over £7000. If the proposed system were carried, to maintain the same revenue the rate would have to be raisod accordingly. Those whos3 lands had the greatest amount of improvements in proportion to their capital value would have their rates increased. It ia provided by the " Rating on Unimproved Value Act " of 1896, that in any county where the rating on unimproved value ia adopted, the rates could be proportionately incre&sed, ao as to produ*? a revenu-8 equal to that produced by a rate of l£d in the £ on capital value, which, as before stated, was the maximum. It therefore naturally followed that to j maintain the revenue the rut© would have to be raised accordingly, with tb.B result that in the cbbo of those whose lands carried costly improvements, their rates would be lessened , while those with smaller improvements would have to mate up ths difference. The amount of improvements ovar the whole county is practically one-sixth of its total Capital Value, necessitating the raising of the rate by one-fifth, if the proposed system ba> adopted. Ratepayers can thus easily see how this will aflect I them. If a'nmn bad property valued ! at £8000, at the present rate of eleven- j sixteenths of a penny in the £ he pays each year *3 11s lOd. To ascertain whether he will be benefitted by the new system, he divides this value by six. One-sixth is equal to £500 and taking tbta from the £3000 leaves £2500. This at the rate increased one-fifth, produces exactly the > same revenue, jSS 11s lOd. ' To put it more plainly, say a man has property worth £240 which at a penny rate produces £1. One-aixth of this ia £40 which taken from £240 leaves £200. Rating this £200 at( the rate increased to a penny and one-Sfth produces the same revenue, £1. If the improvements on any property equalled one- sixth of the total Capiial Value, the rates would be neither increased nor deoroased. If th 9 improvements are more than onesixth, the owner would be a gainer by the rating on unimproved valuo being adopted ; if lesa than one sixth, his rates wouid he more than under the present system. A. majority decided the question, and three yeara would elapse before another poll could ise taken. If carried, it would come into foroe on April Ist, 1901. The nnmber of voters on the roll was 1240, and these had 2130 \ Vot6B. I Mr A. Walker said this-WSs a matter to which he had given a great deal of consideration for a number of yeara, and he had, come to the conclusion that the system of Bating on Uuiinproved Value was the fairer methodIt had always seemed to him an anomaly that the man who was most industrious should be the more heavily taxed » Under ths present system a man was practically taxed for his industry. Take the case of two farms of 1000 acres adjoining each other, each worth £8 per acre. One man built a homestead and divided his land into twelve or thirteen .paddocks, the building and-

cutting up and fencing ftiß providing a good deal of laboa?j;H vicinity. When the aasessotß round, this man was assessed per acre, and he had to payt^H that amount. The othoi man ringfenced his ground, put inj^B hut and employed a shepherd,!! was therefore only rated -at §^B The present system was a clor^K the industrious and spaculativi^B and thera was no question ihjj^B rating on unimproved values fairer system for the community, B Mr Henderson asked ho^B Walker would explain the posifeß; the Waikakahi grazing ruas. paid the same rates whether improved or whether^hey did uol^B Mr Walker said the amuun^B would be less for the man improvements than for the ouetß Mr Hendorsou said it did uotm^B what improvements were putgß grazing run. They would not bitiß for improvements, but would benefit under the new system. B Mr Mystyn Jonas saiJ t'nsß speaker was right, but the reason^! that small grazing runs were iorn^H rated on what was practkallj^B system of unimproved values it B now sought to introduce. tB grazing runs would therefore bit^J higher. Formerly, ona olfl advantages held out in taking up ir^B ruas was the small rates they paii^| did not Bay it was not a hardship t B if he were the owner of a «fl grazing run he would probabljiß against rating on unimproved nlfl but as it was, ho would vote for It, B Mr Beere asked what wore i>B impro vents under the " Unimptgfl Values Act." fl The Chairman said everything ß improvement except the laud. H Mr Beere said thjro wa^amß impression about with regard to ifl rates. Water- races were exemjfl but not the rates. He merely TiiiH this point mad a clear. I I The Chairman said no rateiifl mentioned. I Mr Backlinghaia eaid he undenifl Mr Beere to ask for speoino-itDpnfl jments; •whethet, If a man p« ! paddock down in grass or paiuttdil house he would be taxed, ■ Mr Besro read out a -claase olfl Aot, stating that itnprovemeotifl eluded water-raosd constructed jjnifl or otherwise, bouses, fences, pi lands, etc. I His Worship the Mayor, Drßariß said be would like to draw attnfl to a question which had cropped !}■ the borough, and have the peiutol clear. The individual question M each would pay more or less flui putting the matter fairly. I should not consider what he mib taxed under the present systeb ; ill what he would be taxed tin f honoe, when he had put improTeß on bis property. It was pi«a that overy man was going to imp his property sooner or later. Tbo they might raise the rate, the b«9 the improved value taxation ' equitable. The voter was -Toinj tiie remissiou of unfair taxation u future, when he had pui iaiprovesfl on his land. I In reply to Mr Mostyn Jone3-,fl Chairman said, if carried, thiiM would remain in force till anotbafl was asked for aod a negative pfi^ oarried by a majority* In reply to Mr Beere/the Obiln said that property under and % £1000 gave one vote, over £10001 under JG2OOO two votes, and OYtfS three votes, which was the eo»^ number, no matter what ftm«B^ property was held. -Mr Q. H. Graham wished to p* phaße of the question, not yet to* on. Suppose a poor man id acres of land, and although desin>4 doing so, he could not put ius% mentß on his land. Was it fairfej him for his inability to improve * he was struggling perhapi on*' heavy mortgage. Mr Walker said this man was^ choked by tha mortgaga, Bat i" bettor to be a little hard to individual case than tax theindurf* man. The man who bad a eW| hundred acres and money, *vbi» refused to Bpend on improve" 3l could well afford to pay th 9 amount. The Chairman said In thb* ratepayers could record their " only at the booth in tbe riding* which they held their property. There were no more question* 1 on the motion of Mr Moatyn J* seconded by Mr Beero ihe v<rf» thanks was passed to Mr Dougfrj the trouble lid had taken In UfW. facts before . latepayera. — ThU * carried unanimously. The meeting then adjourned,

I Cough f Cough I Cougiri ' Don'itfJ take Tuseiourft, % romedy lox all «n And lung tnrabtah