Taxing the Farmer.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume xxii, Issue 6456, 28 December 1904, Page 3

Taxing the Farmer.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —The utterances of Messrs Studhohue, O'Halloran, and Leadley would lead many to imagine tn^t these political guides and leaders of the farmers did not believe in tuxing improvements, bub lest anyone should be mUled by these self-appointed guides of the farmers' and small landowners, it is as well that it should bo known definitely that these gentlemen are amongst the most persistent and strenuous *>dvocates f r the taxation of improvement?. They believe the value of a farmer's house, which he has built to shelter j his family. *hould be taxed, and if it be a large family, he may require at least a seven or eight-roomed house. As to the value of his outbuildings, stables, g>anary, etc., the value ofr his fenc^p, gates, etc., and if he be a farmer who tales pride in the appearance of .his homestead, and he is one who believes in good fences, gates, etc,, the moie he will be made to pay; for his valuation willbehgh for improve ments as compared with the careless and slovenly man, who cares nnught for the appearance of his fence*, gates, etc., or homestead buildings. The man who takes a pride m his farm is a marked man "as a local ratepayer, and must be made to pay for it. Such is the effect of the doctrine preached by some of these gentlemen.

Now, ever since some of the larger landowners h/ivß taken upon thomrelves to act as guides, and counsellors to the email farmers, they hfivo never wearied in warn ing the small farmer to beware of the ciy Socialist-, to beware of the man who would t-ix the small farmer out of his home. Well as odb of the city Socialists, I pro? o c to have a word or two to say to these small fsirrners, and it is about a proposal which the farmers hive been warned not to have anvrhing to do with, namely, rating on the l«Tvi value only ins'ead of on the capital v+lne, thit 'f, the valuo of land, as well as th<? valno of improvements, which is what •It-'so guides and leaders of the small farmers Relieve in.

I want to present (his to the email farmer : If the value of an eight or fenroomed farm h'nise is spread out over a £10,000 farm it works out pretty thin, but not so wifcb respect to a ,£IOOO farm. That i.=, fch*> small farmer has a greater percentage of va.lue of improvements to the acre than the large lnndowner tn.s, oonspquentiv, if the value of improvements are exempt from tuX'tHon, the small landowner is hetter off than the large landowner, as the latter, having a sni<ller amount in value of improvements per .£IOOO of land value, would pay more than he ia at present paying under the capital value system. The small farmer, with the large family to house, pays more in proportion to his income thnn the large owner with a large family does in local taxation under the capital value system. This i 3 not equality of sacrifice.

I find a largo number of farmers take the sarae view as I do of this question, and from the farmer's standpoint lam in good company. What evidence can I produce in support of my contention ? The very be*t — the opinion of the farmer himself, expressed at the ba'lot box in connection with the polls which have bean taken to bring the rating on the unimproved value system in'o operation in various counties and road districts. We will take the counties first:—

I would ask your counlry readers to note the big majorities in favour, in connection with every poll, and the fact that there are fifteen counties which have carried the polls in favour of rating on land values and against taxing the value of improvements for local rating purpose?.

The following ro.'id districts also, by vote of the ratepayers, adopted the system :— Hunua, Manßwatu, Maraetai, Mireretu, Papalmra, Peiorus, Spreydonand TaratahiCarterton,

It is na.sy enough ro say that the system of rating on the unimproved value of land, which I have ro long, find, in most cases, successfully advocated, would prove ruinous to the farmer, but it is not a satisfactory way of disposing of the proposal, so I intend to place before your country readers and more especially those who live in the Wakanui Road District, some facts, so that the ratepayers of that district may be in a position to jndge for themselves whether the rating on land value system is likely to prove ruinous or not. I claim for it that it is a more fair and just system than to tax a man on the value of hi 3 improvempnte, which is done under the system now in force, the capital value system. According to the latest statistics, the capital ratable va'ue of the Wakanui Road District is £472,2-1. Th© general rate levied is •S-d in the £. This will yield £73718s 9d. The unimproved ratable land value is £353,147. A rate of in the £on this will yield £735 14s. As will be seen, the Road Board will get practically the same amount of revenue, and the rate in the £ is only increased by £d. To show how the unimproved land value system will operate as compared with rating on the capital value system, I append some examples, giving the initials of the owner, the area of the capital value and land value. The information is taken from the valuation roll. Then in the last two columns, I Bhow the rates payable under each system. This will enable the ratepayers to see how the rating on land value system will affect the small farmers :—

The above actual examples cover a variety of properties as to area, capital value and land valup, and with the value of improvements varying. The rate of j}d is the Road Board rate on the capital value, and Id is its equivalent on the land value. The evidence disclosed absolutely disposes of the contention of some of the would-be leaders of the farmere that the rating on land value system would spell ruin for the farmers. The facts herein set out also show that a great deal of clap-trap and misleading nonsense haß been talked to the farmer?.—l am, etc., H. G. Ell. Christchurch, Dec. 26, 1904.

Votes For. Votes Aea'nst County. Cheviot Eketahuna Hokianga Inantjahua Pahiatua Raglan Southland Stratford Tanranga ... Waitnarino Waimate „, Waipawa Wairarapa North Wairarapa South Buller 165 149 109 284 350 110 Olfl 3d9 00 43 368 463 331 ]S7 ?C2 41 21 25 11 31 85 574 23 13 13 I<>2 28 OS 8 84

v <D a O w 2 3 OS J3 ■3-S .-S-T3 pL,rt« 0 «S 15, a * P3O Vi m J6 £ P G 799 14,100 12,815 22 0826 14 0 T.B. 50 1,200 750 1 17 6 111 3 Estate of J.L. 6G 888 658 I-7 9 1 7 5 S.T. 200 3,345 3,000 5 4 6 6 5 0 J.E.T. 194 2,127 1,746 3 6 S 3 12 9 M.W. 170 2,035 1.360 3 3 7 216 8 D.J.D. 134 1,478 1,061 2 6 2 2 4 2 F.A.A. 78 P6B 442 1 010 018 5 J W.B. 100 750 525 1 3 5 1 1 10 J.D. 198 1,035 685 112 4 1 8 fi G.W.L. 428 3,099 2.364 4 1« 10 4 18 6