MR PARR APPEALS TO THE CUPIDITY OF THE WAIKATO FARMERS.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 3014, 7 November 1891, Page 5 (Supplement)

MR PARR APPEALS TO THE CUPIDITY OF THE WAIKATO FARMERS.

TO THK EDITOR. Sir, —Mr Parr appeals to the settlers in a manner quite ignoring the injustice of what he asserts will be for their benefit. He assumes that because under a single tax upon the original valve of the land that the farmer will be less handicapped than he is now by the present property tax. By and by I will ehiw that it would not be so, but for the time being I will assume that he is right. Supposing that under a land tax on the original value of the laud without improvement the farmer would have to pay less, I assert that Such a tax would be an injustice. I am happy, very happy and proud to say that those to whom the appeal is made as to being for their benefit ignore the benefit, and say right is right and that right should prevail. Last week I was where men do congregate. I met an old friend who 13 a settler owning 150 or 200 acres of land in good condition and in good cultivation and well stocked with stock and implements. This old friend of mine asserted that a land tax upon Georgian principles would be a monstrous iniquity, that under it he himself, who was in a manner comparatively well off, would have to pay no moru than the new beginner who had neither cultivation nor stock nor implements, he said that would bo damnable iniquity to the new beginner. I cannot say that these are the identical words he made use of, bub if nut, what he did say conveyed the same meaning. I will now, to the best of my ability, show that under the Georgian land tax, that is the land without the improvement.-* paying the whole taxes of the country, both new beginning settlers and old well-off settlers will both have to pay more than under the present property tax. In doing so I will have to repeat what at various times I have already said in Tkr Waikato Times ; this is disagreeable to me. I remarked to my old friend that I was going to cease writing letters. He desired to know why. I told htm I had nothing new to say. He replied that I must continvie, for truths were not received by saying or telling once or twice, but required to be reiterated and hammered into the people. Well, I will hammer away till Mr Parr, who has already renounced part of the Georgian principle, renounces it wholly and entirely. Mr Parr has done some harm. He must be instructed so that he will cease doing harm, and his energy be directed into a good channel, when he will be then as beneficial to society as he is now harmful. It is very taking, this saying that the land tax, without improvements, should pay tin whole government of the country and interest on the loans, and in the takingness of it lies the devilment. The poor new beginner looks at the surface and only sees one side, and no other side will he see, that side being that he in his future improvements will not be taxed. But I say lie will be taxed twice more under the land tax, without improvements being taxed, than under the present property tax, with improvements being taxed. The new beginner looks at the improvements being untaxed as so much gain, but he nevor looks at the other property, not farm property, which iH also like the improvements not going to be taxed, as being so much lost to him, the farmer, bncause as the land is to pay all, not as now, only paying say a half more or less, consequently the half more or less which is given up as taxation is added to the land which is to pay all, and not as now haviug to pay only a half more or less. "Georgism" implies that the land is to bear all taxation, at least so says Mr Parr, who is a Georgian. Well Mr Parr in a letter, not his last one, but one previous to it said that as land was the cause of all wealth so should it pay accordingly, Tis true Mr Parr has been lately tinkering with " Georgism " he now would free the farmer's land from being robbed of the increment, and would only rob the town land of its increment, but principles, if Georgism is a principle won't stand tinkering. If it is right to rob the town land of it* increment go also is it right to rob the farmer of the increment on his land, either is robbery. What the new beginner cannot see is that undor the present property-tav all above the £500 exemption have to pay one penny in the pound. Under the land-tax he would perhaps have to pay a shilling. Of course if he had only to pay Id in the £ without improvements he would be better, but nothing being got under the land-tax for improvements what is lost to the taxes by euch giving up has to be dded to what is left for taxation, that is the land. This with the other taxation which is also to be given up has also to be added to thn land-ta\, would brine it up to perhaps Is in the pound instead of a Id as it now is. As for the big estates being made to pay the defecit, that is all bosh for if the big estates were confiscated they would not bring one penny to the Government as the expense of selling and surveying them would be more than what they would bring. It has all along been so, and that too with the idea that the purchaser would not be robbetl of his land.—l am, etc. Harapkpk. Harapepe, 29th October, 1891.