PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 128, Issue 21371, 15 March 1941, Page 11

PUBLIC OPINION

As expressed by correspondents whose letters are welcome, but for whose views we nave no responsibility. Correspondents are requested to write in ink. It is essential that anonymous writers enclose their proper names as a guarantee of good faith. Unless this rule is complied with, their letters will not appear.

THAT FASCINATING THING

(To the Editor) Sir,-—ln reply to “One a Minute” I must say that I did not see his reply to my last letter. It must have appeared when I was on a short holiday. If it explained why lam a slave when a bank gives me an overdraft, but a free man when it gives me money, I must see it. Will my opponent please give me the date of its publication? I entered into this discussion with the view of preventing the public from being misled by the fallacious propaganda of my opponent; not with any idea of altering his beliefs or hallucinations. He belongs to a class whose minds are sneathed in triple steel against both arguments and facts. I have done my job. The comedy has had a good run; it is time to dre# the curtain. Besides, one gets tired of pouring water on a duck’s back.—• I am, etc., MAGOG. Ngaruawahia, March 13.

GIRLS WORK ON FARMS

(To the Editor) Sir,—Referring to your report of the Appeal Board sitting at Huntly appearing in Thursday’s paper, I would say with regard *to my daughters undertaking haymaking that owing to excessive cost and the difficulty of securing reasonable labour, these girls stepped into the breach voluntarily and took charge of the tractor and sweep and swept in approximately 400 tons of hay. The other took sharge of raking operations with two horses and raked the hay. My neighbour’s daughter worked the hay-grab right through the operations. Ten stacks were built in between the milkings, and not a hitch. I have had 30 years’ experience of those operations during my fanning life, and it was an inspiration to be in the paddock with the girls. The old pioneer spirit can still be found even in our day. I am convinced that in an emergency scores of daughters of fanners can be found who can step into the breach when required.—l am, etc., PRODUCER. Taupiri, March 14.

LOCAL BODY RATING

(To the Editor) Sir, —It is very strange that bodies such as the Municipal Association, Chambers of Commerce and so on seem to prefer almost any method of raising public revenues to the honest one of taking community earnings for community purposes. Is it due to sheer ignorance of the sciences of economics and ethics, or is it just plpin stupidity? For example (see Waikato Times report), at its conference in Auckland last week the Municipal Association of New Zealand “discussed the introduction of legislation to provide that in cities, borough! and town districts rating should only be on the basis of annual value.” This, of course, with the obvious intention of abolishing rating on the unimproved value of the land and substituting for it rating on the value of both land and improvements; although the very next clause—“and that provision be made for local bodies to place a percentage increase tax on undeveloped land situated within a zone to be fixed by the local body from time to time”— practically amounts to an admission that land values are created by the community as a whole and may be justly taken by the community for public purposes. The president, Mr T. Jordan, made this quite clear when, “submitting j the remit on behalf of the executive,” he “said that when a person bought cheap land on the outskirts of a developed area and then asked the local body to provide residential services, he was in effect asking other ratepayers to subsidise him.” And he “suggested that areas fully serviced should be settled before the services were extended to outer districts.” This is very sound doctrine, but the logical conclusion from it is, not that annual value rating should be made mandatory, but that all local body rates should be levied solely on the unimproved value of the land. That is to say, in effect, that instead of allowing the landholders to charge the public for all the community services rendered in respect of their land and then making the public pay a second time, in rates and taxes, for those services, the community j should send in to the landholder its i bill for services rendered and abolish ! rates and taxes. Strict justice and j sound’ economics alike demand that I the community should take the ; whole of its own earnings for public i purposes and stop altogether the j present unjust tax system of rob- | bing individuals of their individual j earnings. The rating of unimproved values is the best, if not the only practicable, method of ensuring “that areas fully serviced should be settled before tthe services were extended to outer districts,” and the heavier the rate on the unimproved value the more fully will the desired end be secured.

I don’t suppose that the Municipal Association wishes to encourage land speculation and to discourage housebuilding and all other industries; but that would be the inevitable result of the rating system it favours. For example, take two adjoining sites, each worth £loo —one vacant and the other with a house on it worth, say, £IOOO. It is clear that the owner of the house and site would, under the annual value system, pay in rates eleven times as much as the owner of the vacant site. Surely, a very heavy penalty for the crime of building a house! I am glad to see that the conference “decided to defer a decision (on the remit) to enable local bodies to consider it fully.” And that, I fancy, will be the last we shall hear of it. But, if not, I can hardly imagine the present Government being foolish enough to put through a Bill that would in the aggregate penalise to the extent of many thousands of pounds a year the housing scheme it has fathered throughout the Dominion.—l am, etc., ARTHUR WITHY. Wellington, March 13.