MANGERE FARMERS' CLUB.

Auckland Star, Volume XXII, Issue 250, 21 October 1891, Page 5

MANGERE FARMERS' CLUB.

DEBATE ON THE LAND QUESTION.

At the ordinary meeting of the above Club on Monday night, a debate took place between Messrs Gerald Peacockeand A. Kelly (for the single tax) and Messrs E. W. Burton and E. Bell (against). Mr Massey presided with his usual impartiality. Mr Peacocke opened by defining the single tax, and explained thab it was proposed to bring it in by gradual instalments. He stated that the present Government land tax measures were far from being single taxism, chiefly because of the exemption and the tax on improvements over £3,000. Single taxers scorned the idea of burdening the farming community, but on the contrary proposed to relieve them of all indirect taxation. The principle of the single tax was that land (or "'natural opportunities ") should be free to all. Land tended in time to become scarcer and dearer owing to competition. The effect of land taxation would be to bring down land values, and though ib would efface the speculative value of land, yet those farmers having sons would surely •wish these latter to bo enabled to obtain land at a payable figure. As to the burating-up policy, termed by Mr Burton as a blow at agricultural wages and profits, he maintained that the result of such policy would be to increase the amount of wool or produce raised, and that many more men would employ themselves. It •was not the 1,000 acre properties they ■wanted to burst up, bub those of 10, 20, ami 100,000 acres. fVith regard to our increasing exports, he asked whether the country was at all proportionally benefited thereby, when such a largo share of the returns went into the pockets of a few people and of absentees. The speaker concluded by denying that the eingle tax agitation was formerly a town movement. He himself was bred a farmer. The AntiPoverty Society had members all over the country, whilo three of its Committee were farmers. In America, that immense, farTeaching organisation, the Farmers' Alliance, had practically adopted the single tax.

Mr Burton, in answer, said thafa the •single tax theory was supported Toy very few facts. The whole argument of Henry George's "Progress and Poverty " was that poverty was increasing, and that labour ■was being ground down by rent. Facbs •were against this. Official statistics showed ■pauperism and crime to be decreasing both in England and the United States. In Ireland, where legislation placed natural opportunities within reach of the producing class, poverty was" increasing. The value of land in proportion to the total wealth had been steadily decreasing during the last two centuries, The cry of the Socialists as represented by Gronlund ■was not against land, bub against capital. The share of wealth going to wages was aowadavs getting out of all proportion ; it equalled the amount received by capital ■and the upper classes. The speaker affirmed that facts showed that the nearer people were to natural opportunities the nearer they were to beggary, and instanced the condition of the Prussian, French, Swiss, Bombay and Madras peasantry in proof. Then, again, could our New Zealand Government be trusted with the control of the land ? Ho did not think it could. The single tax was unjust; would take the kernel and leave the shell, in short, ruin the landholder. The speaker concluded hy pointing out the Georgian theory that jenb robs labour, and gave it as his opinion that the State receiving rent would be equally robbing the labourer. Mr Kelly took up the practical side of Iftie question as a farmer of 40 years' standing. In his colony of South Australia, the farmers had agitated for and obtained a land tax yeara ago, and were perfectly satisfied with its working in their interest, as opposed to land speculation and monopoly. The same conditions which necessitated that land tax existed in New Zealand. He explained the difference between the speculative value of land and its using value. The bona fide settlor could not afford to pay a speculative value for his land, but must strictly calculate its producin" value ; unless this was done, failure was inevitable. This speculative Talue could only be eliminated by a land 'tax. Under a land tax there would be no leakage of revenue, a« under other forms of taxation ; the land could not slip through the fingers of the tax collector. Mr Bell said that the single tax was erected on fallacies. The supporters of the movement did not desire to go on the land, but wanted to live on the industry Of others. He maintained that the value of land was not regulated by population, but by the presence or otherwise of capitalistic enterprise in developing the resources of a country or establishing industries. To capital he attributed the present flourishing condition of our export trade. Mr Kelly had told them that the Australian land laws were most liberal, and yet the Australians were piling "P huge cities, would not go on the land. In conclusion he asserted that the result of tns • single tax would be the reduction of agriculturists to a mere serfdom to the soil. Mr Burton then briefly replied on the linss of his first speech, declared the unearned increment to be a myth, at least in New Zealand, and finished by inviting the jaingle taxers who wanted to shift their burdens on to the farmers to emigrate to ■Bombay and Madras. Mr Peacocke in summing up for his side pointed out that the fall in value of English agricultural lands, was due to world competition, ana tho creation of land values in new countries, thus equalising the matter all round. After a lively discussion a lengthy resolution adverse to the single tax, moved by. Mr M. Kirkbride, was carried, the greater part of the audience refraining from voting either way. A vote of thanks to the visitors, carried by acclamation, terminated '•"e proceedings.