PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 119, Issue 19894, 25 May 1936, Page 7

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by Correspondents, '\\~iiose letters are welcome. but for \ whose views we have no responsibility. Correspondents are requested to write in ink, it Is essential that anonymous writers enclose their \ Proper names as a guarantee of gum] faith. Unless this rule is com- 1 plied with, their letters will not. appear. t

I HAMILTON RADIO STATION. (To the Editor.) Sir.——l wish to endorse the efforts of the many persons who are‘ advocat—ing the establishment of a B station in Hamilton. \Vho can ever forget the strains of ” Good Morning Glory " coming from 12H at a time, when the stations supported by the listeners were of! the air. No more can we look forward to the pleasure of request nights. Lac]: of finance is the trouble and advertising has in the past been pro—hibited. Its use has proved successful in countries much more progres—sive than New Zealand. Better prov grammes are the aim of all, and every—thing possible to reach this end should be done—l am, etc, FREE AIR. Frankton. May 22. DISTRIBUTION OF MONEY. (To the Editor.) Sin—Social Credit advocates have used a quotation from a speech by the Right lion. R. .\lcKenna, chairman of the Midland Bank. so often that many know it by heart. but as some corres‘ponv'lents have forwarded from time to time clippings that have a. bearing on various problems—and I think the practice a very good one—l should like to quote this, from the latest annual speech of the great Lendon banker. It is worth thinking over: “Theories on the total Supply of money have nothing whatever to do with its distribution among classes or individuals. More than one exponent of monetary management has been misled into the belief that he has dis—covered a simple method whereby every individual can be made better' oi! without working. Monetary man—agement can do more than remove obstacles in the way of industry and as—sist its expansion. It can help to ex—tend the area of employment and bring production and consumption into better relationship; but, notwithstanding many dogmatic assurances to the contrary. it cannot of itself create wealth available for distribution.—l am. etc.. - Ft. POVALL. Hamilton. May 22. THE 0TH!!! SIDE. (To the Editor.) Sin—Like many others I read the correspondence columns with interest, and I want to acknowledge that they gain in every way by the entry of the womenfolk. Every now and again some farmer's wife enters the lists, usually to discuss the question of farm labour, and there is an incisiveness about their letters that is effective. Some months ago a farmer‘s wife in Ta Awamutu district took other writers to task and she demolished their arguments—there is no other word for it. She knew what she was writing about, had the facts at her finger ends, and there were no digressions in her let—ters. Similarly a correspondent from Tirau has contributed a letter full of facts: right to the point, obviously written by one able to draw on experience. These letters. to my mind, were excellent, not simply because of the facts advanced but as direct, forceful expressions of opinion. and, it I may say so. the Times was tortunate to have them in its columns.——~l am, etc., M. C. COWEY. Hamilton. May 22. ~ GUARANTEED PRICES. (To the Editor.) Sir,——l did not reply to “Equity‘s” letter because I should simply have had to repeat the argument I had prev—iously used. “Equity" will persist in regarding the rise in wages to apply only to one class of workers. The Government say they are going to raise all wages. it’ they raise all wages then the in—creased cost must amount to the full percentage of the rise. As I said in a previous letter “if the farmer gets 10 per cent. more for the hide, the tanner 10 per cent. more for tanning the hide. the boot operative 10 per cent. more for making the boot, and the shop assistant 10 per cent. more for selling it, then the boots must cost 10 per cent. more to the consumer." If this does not conflnce “Equity" I have nothing; more to say about it. Then "Equity" insists that raising wages increases purchasing power. I insist that as the cost will be increased by the rise in wages. to the full extent or the rise, the worker will get less goods and not more—less because profits are assessed on “shelf'cost.” ii’ a pair of boots cost the Storekeeper £1 and 110 wanis‘io per cent. proilt he adds 25 plus his over—head costs. If the boots are raised in price, owing to increased wages, ctc., to 305. the store-keeper adds 35 plus his increased overhead. ’l‘hcn "Equity“ says I am wrong in stating that “the Government is going ll) inrrrusu payments all round." He says “They have not increased inter—est or rents." No! liul they have stated that they are going. to deal arbitrarily between the mortgagor and the mortgagee and if they do the price for mortgage money will iltll'lll‘il. 'i‘hcy at; raising the Cost of selling out timber. or making bricks. limo, cement and all other building material. The)! are raising llle wages 01' all the men l‘lil[|lti)'l‘ll in building. cni‘pentt‘rs, puinlrrs. plumbers. lirirklaycrs. 916.. and ronscqucntiy the cost at building :1 house will risr. If the rest of build< ing lill‘. house rises so then also must the rmtt rise or nohoily \\'tlllltl build houses. If "l‘lquily" Pan ovnlvn n srlii‘mi‘ of raising wages. without raising; prices. he has solved all ulll‘ (llillcultics. ii‘ ovei'yhmiy rnuhl hr 'pnid £7) per (limit and cost rrmnin us .il lil't‘St'ill, \\h.il is time we could and would mun—l um. etc... i FRANK LlOLßliLllx'. i .\lorrlnsville, May 21.

I THE WELFARE LEAGUE. (To the Editor.) Sin—ln the letter published in today’s issue the Welfare League tell; about abuse. Well, Sir, I am sure that these learned people do not understand the King's English. There is no abuse in publishing the facts of the case. The League refuse to give examples of their constructive thought whereby they assist the ordinary folk. Why? They dare not come out on to the pub—lic platform to expound their policy, or to defend it. Once again, \Vhy? When we criticise the only major policy, namely finance, the League attack the reformer. Why? . Regarding honest opinions, this is a question that the League should not bring forward. It is too patent whom the League represent, for them to talk about honest opinions. They up—hold a class; the top class. That is the section of people whom they defend: the monied class. Let any member of the public study their correspond—ence for the past three years, as a sample, and, if it can he proved that. the statements in my last letter are incorrect, then I will withdraw all adverse criticism publicly—l am, etc., WATSON HOLMES. Hamilton. May 22. BILATERAL AGREEMENTS. (To the Editor.) Sin—All along I have realised that the success of the Labour Govern—ment‘s economic policy depended on the conclusion of trade agreements with other countries, and especially with Great Britain. There .had been no evidence at all that the British authorities would be willing to negoti—ate on that basis, but a cable message dated London, May 19, stated that, in the House of Commons, the Dominions Secretary had stated, regarding the Ottawa Agreements: “In the view of the British Government it would be most appropriate to proceed by way of discussions with the individual Governments as occasion offered." Whether this means discussions for amending the Ottawa basis or separate agreements‘ with each Dominion I cannot say, but this is the first suggestion I have seen that the British Ministers might negotiate with indi—vidual Dominions, and, if so, then there is a possibility that Mr Nash, when he goes Home, may succeed in striking a good bargain—l am, etc., F. AHMER. .\latamata, May 21. THE LAND PROBLEM. (To the Editor.) Sir,—Mr G. Hunter invites me to Join in to clear up an issue concerning land and taxation. I assume that Mr Hunter's letter was written and posted to you before he sighted my last letter under the above heading, in reply to “Lucre.” I explained therein that I am not a “Single taxer," nor is that the aim of the Commonwealth Land Party. the policy of which in respect of the land I am expounding. This being so, any further reference to me as a ”single taxer“ can only be due to misunderstanding of the matter, or Just to “ calling names." _ ‘I agree with Mr Hunter that all taxation must finally 'come down to the land, and, that being bedrock, it can go no further. I now expect Mr Hunter to agree with me that the opposite thing, a social benefit (all taxation being a burden), likewise comes down to land, and therefore the receiver of land rent—usually in the form of " spurious interest,“ or land rent dis—guised as interest on true capital—is the sole Ilnal beneficiary. If the loss or burden comes down to land, so must the gain or increment. Does Mr Hunter agree with me that my parallel statement to his is correct? I have read a good many letters from Mr Hunter’s pen, and at the moment I should say that he will ac—cept. my 'point above quite as readily and unequivocally as I have accepted his, and I will now pass on to the next phase. I am willing to discuss the whole of Mr Hunter's letter. but it will be useless until and unless we can agree upon the fundamental differences between economic rent and taxation. The vital differences are very well understood by those who have a powerful vested interest in obscuring this economic truth. Some years ago, a correspondent in another newspaper wrote several letters advocating that we should have an examination of some sort to show whether candidates for Parliament were qualified to legislate upon our social and economic problems Lots of letters on-the sub—ject were published. I made three separate attempts to state that one of the most illlporlant qualifications was that a politician should be able. ot't‘~ hand, to explain at least lhrce important differences between rent. and taxation. 1 did my level host, as a professional journalisl, to make these letters ac—-(nptuhlc~shm-t. courteous, clear, but none was [llllllir‘llf‘lli llowcvrr, I think we have arrived at more liberal limos, and sooner or Liter the truth must pl‘mail. . Firstly, :1 rent. is received by the pal‘ly rightfully owning the thin: routed, and is thus (ill honest exchange 01‘ values. The point here is that isocial, or “ unimproved" value of land ‘ls a social product, attaching to land ‘il‘l‘t‘spr‘rlivc or the labour or improvements (lone on that land. It follows, ltlirrrt'urv. llmt snt'lt‘l) should receive ltllc rentals on this value. i A luv, in i'olltrmlistinction, is re< iccived by :1 party that does not own the thing taxed. In terms of pure cmnonlit‘s. therefore, all taxation is legal rubber}. ’l'hns \\u mum in tho tirst dillorenve between a tax and .1 rent. and the must important difference, lit“ t‘.||l.\'t“ tllu lilurul illlvsliun ls in\ul\wi. nt't'~-l‘ \\llirh lht‘l'o can be no compro—lll|>t‘. .\i~\l. llw “nwimngo nl‘ \.il:n‘s” inl‘illlll'li .'lilll\u', nit-zins that for lin: pnya rnvnl ol‘ rvnt .in t‘l|lll\.lil'lll \.illn‘ in exchange is rcrviuul, just him myingr :1 market prirc for :I I|.lir ut‘ boats. l .\ tax, on the Ulill‘l‘ hand, is Il.l_\(|lli\“ irl‘rspm'livc of wllctht-r lilo, tavpnyvr‘ thinks he is gellingv \lllllc for his, lnonr)’: illtlrv‘tl, the tax Hm)’ llt' nsmli in fostor n Slate industry in “Minsk, [ion to the taxpayer‘s business, .15 in} the ('.‘lH‘ of timl-rnnu‘nt untl priuiivl' vstnblisinni-nt printing' at tho lil'i'.\t‘ll‘l time: 112‘. lbw t.i\ um lw nsml in w)" for lin: pvrl‘ol'nlauuo of useless and un-

{economic services. With the rent, the payer thereof pays it because, in his ljudgment. he is getting value for his ‘ money, and what. happens to the money tartar that does not concern him as ‘payer of the rent. t A rent. is a voluntary payment. if ithe payer is not. satisfied, he can re11inquish the land. the house, or what—‘ever he is paying rent on, if he can do better elsß\\'lle'l'c. \\'ith a tax. how—‘ever, payment is compulsory, and epugnant on that account. However tunjusl the payer may think the tax is (such as most. of us do in respect of ‘taxation on the necessaries of lite) he must: pay it, and the State will use the Police Force, the military, air and naval forces, if needs be, to make him pay—and this is done where smug—gling is resorted to in order to evade taxation ininositinns. ' 1 Finally, and on the average. rent. is! fixed by the market, and is thus cow nuniic, \\'hrl‘eas taxation is lix’ctt hy the tlt‘L‘tlS or \xhims of politicians, Hun—tincd to l'cntuls lllltl royalties for row mine, the Stuti- \\nutit 1w tiring \\ilhin the social llit‘ulllL‘, \\'hcrcns taxation has no limit. .\'hul't ut' the utmost unltlll'itllt'e nt‘ ”lt‘ [mu-lo tn inffll' it, unrt the law oi“ diminishing returns, «”11! (l I Nitinnnt I)ch is lll'slgltL'tl to inn'iti-nl posterity \\'ilti taxation that the exist.» innr generation czinnot lld‘Yl‘l'l)llti|l|ll|l,‘tlinto funds. It .\lr ltuntt‘r is in general :ig‘i'cnuil‘nt with the ulmvc, l \\ilt iht'n lll‘UL'E‘L‘d t 0 Cotillltcllt an the nc.\l scu—tioii of his iottcr:~l :llil. 011;, t T. li. )chILIiAX. l Mntuinata, .\lr-y ‘2O,