THE SINGLE-TAX.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXV, Issue 2879, 25 December 1890, Page 3

THE SINGLE-TAX.

TO THK EDITOR. Sib,—ln your issue of the 13th inst. you make n vigorous attack upon the advocates of li Land or Single-tax. Now, I imi sure we are always pleased to see our theories attacked with the most powerful ordinance that can he brought to boar upon them. It they are true they will shine all the clearer, anil if false they will be shattered. I conceive that we are endeavouring to establish a more just and righteous system of government. Now, sueliijbeing the case, we court every investigation into the writings and teachings of the leader.'! of this movement. Our present systems are producing disastrous results, and if those who oppo.se Urn land-tnxers can propound a system that will more justly and more truly obtain the results after which we are striving, [ believe we shall only be too glad to sit at their feet and learn. Our end and aim is to so frame our laws and institutions so that each member of the State shall obtain the result, of that which bv his labour he produces. All right-thinking mwi will, I think, agree with this. Ymi, I think, are in error when you state that the laud-taxers regard the owners of land a-, a criminal class, / never yet saw in any standard work on the subject such a s'ate.nent, for it is against systems we iiro lighting, and not against individuals. We, are fashioned by our environments. What was considered right and just a few years ago is now looked upon as wrong, and so we shall keep struggling onwards and upwaids to a higher level through the elforts of earnest and Belf-sacrilicing men and women. 1 agree with you to a great extent that it is not so much as to what, has been done in the past, as to the morality of what we are proposing to do at the picsent. You say, "after doing our best for many yearn to advertise throughout the world, the great advantages this colony possessed as a field for immigration, its admirable climate, the quality of its soil, the varieties of its tenure under which it might be held, but above all, the moderate rate at which flood land might be purchased. Offeiing, in fact, every inducement for settlers to come, and given tho land what it never possessed before, an unimproved value. What right have wo as a people to hold them up as enemies of the state." Now, I think you very justly and fairly state our ease in this paragraph, with the exception of the last clause, for no doubt it is tho people who have settled upon the land, and are producing vast amounts of wealth annually, that gives our land its unimproved value, but I deny that the groat bulk of them are participating in tho values they create. Agricultural laud, remote from centres of population, has little or no unimproved value, while tho land in our towns and suburbs aro 'of immense value. I know there are people who have settled upon tho land, and which they got for almost, nothing, who could not now gut anything like what it has cost for improvement alone, if they wished to sell out ; also people that bought improved farms some years ago could not get within oO per cent of what tiny paid for them, not much participating in the unearned increment for our settlurn, but on the contrary, they are now paying the greatest poition of the taxes of this colony, as notice the difference between imports and exports, f think the State treats our agriculturalists as its enemy, just the opposite to your suggestion, for they are bled at every turn. They are tho true and real wealth-producers of this or any other country. The State has fostered nearly every other industry except farming, and the land has to pay for all. Tho country feeds tho towns; there they have splendid buildings, stores, mansions, libraries, museums, good roads, and every convenience, while most of our country roads are a standing disgrace to the colony; roads •long which havo to pass food to supply the inhabitants of the towns, and the towns give very littlo back in return. Now, if the country districts had justice they ought certainly to participate in the increased values given to city and suburban lands. These values ought not to be swallowed up by the favoured few who hold possession of these properties, but they should radiate to those who are the means of producing these values, anc', the only way to achievo this object is by adopting the Single-tax upon unimproved land values. You ask what value Waikato land would have if it were not fc, : London. I can tell yen; this much that \i j are seven or eight weeks nearer London than wo were ten years ago, and farms are down in value quite oO per cent. Now reasoning from analogy we can only coinu to lliii, conclusion, that the luaiei we come Io largo cities a; to tunc and lot'/ freight.,, the le.,s valuu-j we get For our piodme and for our farm:,. You tale that a Land-tax of i'> per cent, would very .-.oon erti-h all values out of land. f. think this has boon accomplished already «'> fur «* tho Waikato and many other parts of New Zealand aro concerned and the process is still going on and thai without a hand-tax, for when people can barely make n living out of their occupation they would very soon clear nut to fresh pa-Hov- ; rwji. a I, a givat sacrifice, if they could lintl any better place, but unfortunately land laws urn similar in all parts of the world, Imticc the same sad condition ox''. M - ''a.ve. left old tnglwid (,i make hoimm »u tho land in

these colonies and America, and in many instances their position has been made worse, so om present position will not tempt many to coma and settle here, although we have so thoroughly advertised, etc. Mr Kditor.l will endeavour to show how a Land-tax of 5 per cent upon rniniproved land values will benefit the small fanners, and these are the persons I understand that we are desirous of benefiting, if we can only make them prosperous, then the success of the colony is assured. Under present conditions. I think the large land owners would be too glad to eet back anything like the cost of imnrovement, leaving out of the question what thev originally paid for the land. Land in its unimproved state in tho Waikato is not worth more than one pound per acre on the average. jSow a small settler owning one hundred acres would, under the Single-tax, pay five pounds per annum. We will pat it down that ho pays nothing now for property tax. Now the average family consists of five members, this family will contribute through Cnst.uns duties nearly £20 annually, but it dies not finish here for the merchant and retailer will want 25 percent, profit on this i"2O he pays, now he would only pay £5 per annum under the Single-tax, which would be a direct saving of l":i0. Now there are some 17,000 small land owners in this colony owning from 1 to 50 acres and by changing the incidence of taxation it would mean that these 17,000 people would have £3-10,000 extra to spend annually and most undoubtedly the bulk of it would be spent in trade to the great advantage of tho commonwealth, and this would apply to every wealthy producer in tho colony.—l am, etc. PKOGUKNS.