ANTI-POVERTY LECTURE.

Auckland Star, Volume XX, Issue 286, 2 December 1889, Page 4

ANTI-POVERTY LECTURE.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —Considerable interest is manifested in the question asked by Mr Jordan at the recent Anti-Poverty meeting. As Mr J. re-states the question (with details),perhaps you will allow me space for an amended reply. It is an axiom among: single taxere, that the opemtion of the single tax would be highly beneiicial to all whose interests as capitalists, or workers, equalled or exceeded their interests as land owners.and prejudicial only to those whose chief occupation is landowning. Now, let us see to which class Mr J. belongs, assuming him to bo in the position his question indicates : He owns land £10,000, improvements and stock only £4,000. Clearly he belongs to the latter class, and we shall expecb the single tax to deal with him rather harshly; bub no matter, lot us estimate probable results and see the effact.

Our friend has forgotten to mention a house and furniture ; these, on a property of this size, together with necessary horses and implements, would not be less than £1,000,. giving a total of £15,000. Pro-party-tax Gffl. this amount (allowing £500 exemption) will amount to £60; local taxes, £30; and through Customs, say £50. Total of present taxes, £140. Now, it is certain that the first effect of a land tax would bo to lower values ; country lands, we rosy safely assutn'o, would be lowered fully one half; this would leave us a land value of £5,000 instead of £10,000, as at present. Four per cent, on this amount (an extreme -jstimate) would give £200 for bhe single baxas againsb £140 under the present cyst*?!*, apparently leaving Mr J. the land-ow«w»r il6o to the bad. But how about Mr J., the farmer ? I take it that the reason why his estate is so destitute of improvements is the fear of the property tax, which fines a man for being thrifty and industrious. This would be the first to go in making a change ; and supposing the gradual accomplishment of the single taxextended over, say, ten years, what would prevent Mr J., the farmer, making such improvements that by the time he was called upon to pay the full £200 (single tax) his place would carry eight or ten thousand sheep, instead of fi7e thou«and as at present ? If he is a farmer he would do it; if only a speculator " his occupation would be indeed gone." By effecting the improvenients his kicome would be increased fully one-third, out of which he could well afford to pay the additional £60 ; and in this way the single tax would benefit both himself and others, for he would give employment to labour in effecting the improvements, and would require an exbra shepherd or two as a permanent thing, and this taking place in many other instances, labour would be in demand, and the unemployed difficulty be at an end. Our farmers would thrive under it, and as we have seen, our landowners would be compelled to put thoir land to the best possible use. I there ore submit that the benefits accruing to Mr J. in this case (by the tax on land values) would far exceed any possible loss ; and for the benefit of "Income Tax" I will endeavour to answer any case, real or supposed, that he may submit, provided he gives location and value of improvements, thai: is, of course, subject to the approval of the editor.—l am, etc., A. Cowley.

Kybor Pass, , November 28.