POLITICAL EDUCATION.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 2688, 3 October 1889, Page 3

POLITICAL EDUCATION.

TO TIIK EDITOIi. Slit,-—ln my last letter I said the people were nnt politically educated. 1 now write to yon to show that they are not so. 1 intended to take the electors of our own district to show that they were not so, but upon second thoughts I will turn over to some of our neighbours. To prove my contention I will take Franklin North. It will not be denied that if a constituency elects a member who is, and acts quite iniinically to their interests, the electors of that constituency are not politically educated. Mr Lawry's interests are wholly town, and in his narrow shortsightedness he would sacrifice the country to play into the hands of the town. In his limited understanding, not seeing that it is not the town which makes the country but without the shadow of a doubt it is the country which makes tho town, so he would sacrifice the root which grows the stem and so ruin root and branch. Mr Linvry supports Protection. Now, it has been thoroughly proved that by supporting industries which in a legitimate manner cannot support themselves, you are supporting industries which make the country poorer at the expense of self-supporting industries which enrich the country. If a farmer has to pay half-a-crown more for a pair of trousers, or boots, or a spade, or bill-hook, and if there are ten millions of such extra half-crowns paid, then the country and its inhabitants are these ten million halfcrowns the poorer. All false and spurious reasons aro given that we would in an indirect way receive five shillings and be recouped five shillings for our half-crown, all such reasous are pure fudge and are only told us as a brioe so as to hook us in. Every reason Protectionists give in favour of Protection has been thoroughly and completely exploded ; it is too big a question for me in this letter to show the ruination and absurdity of Protection ; suffice it to say I will at any time defend the doctrines of Free-trade against nny Protectionist. Mr Lawry is also very much against the Property-tax, he would do away with the Property-tax and in its place substitute a Land and Income tax. Here again he is going to rob the country to play into the hands of the town. No doubt we ought to have an Income-tax, but what we would receive from an Income-tax would not make up for the loss which would arise from doing away with the property now taxed and the deficiency would fall upon the land ; that is, the Land tax would need to make up the deficiency. It seems to be completely over-looked that tho Propertytax, as it is, is also a land tax, but it has this good thing about it, that is all other property is also taxed, and what could be fairer than it is so '! There are bribes put forward to tempt tho farmers to have a Land tax in preference to the Property-tax as it now is. It is put foiward that the Land tax should only bo put upon the valuo of the land in its natural state without the value of the improvements being added. This looks beautiful, but when examined into it is only a delusive snare. I will show you how. Till once we have retrenchment the money has to be had, tho money has to be raised, there is no getting out of that sad fact. Now for the beauty which lies iu only taxing upon the original value. I will prove it to be a sham beauty: —An improved acre valuo £0, I d per £on £ti, amount per acre (id ; an acre valued at original co-it £1, (id per £ on £1, amount per acre (Id. But, Mr Editor, I am wronir in showing it would be all the satno. it would be much worse because tho deficiency which would arise from property which is now taxed but which would go free if the present Act was repealed for a Land tax, this deficiency would need to be made up at the expense of the land and whereas we would pay Gd iu the £ we would need to pay Is in the £.—Yours truly. Hauapii'l. llarapipi, September 24th, 1880.