The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, and Echo. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1896. SIR GEORGE GREY AND THE SINGLE TAX.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVII, Issue 270, 13 November 1896, Page 4

The Evening Star: WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, and Echo.

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1896. SIR GEORGE GREY AND THE SINGLE TAX.

For the cauee that laoks aasistanos, For tho -wrong tliat nofcds rosifltanoe, For the futuro in the distance. And the eood that tto can Hb.

Speaking at Ponsonby and at the Foresters' Hall Mr George Fowlds is reported to have stated that Sir George Grey was a believer in the doctrine of the single tax, and, therefore, " those who condemned him (Mr Fowlds) ior his opinions on that subject also condemned Sir George Grey, the father of New Zealand Liberalism." ft

We acquit Mr Fowlds of any desire to wiilully mislead his hearers and to conjure with the name of the veteran Liberal leader by misrepresenting his views on an important public question, but the remark we have quoted discloses an ignorance of Sir George Grey's oft-expressed opinions on this subject, which is unpardonable in one who undertakes to speak in his name. Sir George Grey on many occasions publicly disnented from the doctrine of the single tax. He was the champion of an equitable land -tax, and lor his advocacy of that and as the author of the first land tax adopted in these colonies his name was held in reverence by the sin^letaxers of Australasia. Upon the occasion of his visit to Sydney in March, 1891, the single-taxers of that city organised a reception in his honour, and a report of the speech delivered by him on that occasion will be found in the Star of March iSth, 1891. In it Sir George stated distinctly that he could not accept the doctrine of the single tax. He laid down as his policy " a fair tax upon land and income." The report adds : " The speech was praised by all sections of the Sydney press for its eloquence and moderation, although the ' Australian Star,' which represents the Protectionist party, could not help

poking a little fun at the Single Tax League for having summoned a prophet who would not prophesy, but had justly rebuked them for holding halt the truth."

So much /or the opinions of Sir George Grey upon this queer political hallucination. His views differed in no respect from those of the laic Mr Ballance, Mr Seddoa, and other advocates of an equitable distribution of the national burdens and the imposition of a land tax heavy enough to discourage the holding of large areas ot unimproved land for speculative purposes.

Speaking at. Halcombe the other day, Mr Seddon said :—"The Governmeßt have no intention of interfering with land tenure, and freehold is secure, for the people would rise in rebellion against any party attempting to interfere with it," Ncr is this language a whit too strong. When one thinks of the (oil and self-sacrifice with which thousands ot colonists in New Zealand have reared up their homes — the scantiness of their earnings from labour that begins with the rising and only ends with the setting sun—one (eels that unless the blood which coursed in the veins of our forefathers has degenerated the standard of Civil war woud be raised in New Zealand—a war founded in righteousness—to resist any attempt to rob the settlers on the land of the fruits of their life's labours.

Mr Moreton Frewen, s financier of no mean status, in a letter to the London " Economist " of August Bth, 1896, speaking of the low average earnings of the agriculturist, says : —

Dividing the value of the gross product per farm in the United States, as shown by the statistics of the Department of Agriculture, by the poople on the farm, 5"74, the average grots annual per capita income works out at less than £20, or a trifle over a shilling per day per capita. T!ne?o. b9 it> recalled, aro the returns anterior to thab greao fall in values which dates back to 1893. I have no doubt tbab were later returns available, tho proeent income per capita would work out at barely ninepenco per day. I should add that in New Zealand, wherol recently went) very closely into the official figures of the agriculturist, income, it works out ab less than £20, and in New South Wales at £21 ; while interest on debt, public and privace, per capita in New Zealand requires* £4 14s per anaum, and in New South Walee €4.

In view nf such facts and of one's common experience of the hardships and scant remuneration of labour applied to land, it is scarcely possible to discuss with patience the proposal which comes so glibly from the mouths of well-to-do townsmen, to deliver all other forms of wealth and income trom taxation, and slump the wboie burden upon the unfortunate land-owners, the price of whose products is regulated by the rates ruling in countries where the settler is encouraged instead of being taxed off the face oi the earth. If land-holding, either under freehold or leasehold tenure, is so amazingly profitable, why in the name of all that is sensible do not these single taxers forsake the town for the country ; lijcre is no dearth of " natural opportunities " to them in New Zealand, for plenty of Government land may be got for a rental of 4 per cent, on a low capital value ; and a considerable area of freehold land of good quality, at considerably less than the value of the improvements, is also in the market.

But it is not alone the country settler who would be plundered by legal process if the siugle-taxers had their way. Every industrious iaan who has invested his savings in a site for a home, or whose earnings deposited in banks have been lent out on lauded security--and land, directly or indirectly, is the chief security for national thrift—is to be similarly pillaged. There should be no misunderstanding about the meaning of the single tax, because its champions are moved by the zeal of fanaticism, and by one device or another they will endeavour to accomplish their purpose. Mr Henry George (p. 288) puts their aims in a nutshell. He says: "Let the individuals who now hold it still retain, if they want to, possession of what they are pleased to call their land. Let them buy and sell, bequeath and devise it, we may safely have them the shell if we take the kernel It is not necessary lo confiscate land ; it is only necessary to confiscate rent." " Anyone can see that to tax land up to its full rental value would amount to precisely the same thing as to formally take possession of it and then let it out to the highest bidders." Mr Edward Wiihy is equally explicit. He says: "Even if it were not all required, it might be considered desirable, and we hold it to be equitable, to take nearly it not quite the whole rental v?lue oi all our land.'1 Mr Arthur Withy is no less explicit than his parent. In a recently published address to the electors of Parnell he says :

Let us put an additional penny in the £ on the land tax and abolish all exemptions. This would briny in eomn £U70,000 o year, and with tbis we could give an old ape pension of 6s a week to all ovot the age of 65, and abolish the duty on kerosene and some £100,000 of breakfast cable duties.

The following year, 1 believe, the people would vote for still another penny in the £ on the land tax. and that vv«uld ennble ur to make the old ajje pension up to 12s per week, and abolish another batch of breakfast table duties.

Comment on the morality of these proposals is almost needless. They proceed on the assumption that the State committed an immoral act in selling the freehold of land, and has a right to take it back. It is not incumbent, in the opinion of single taxers, for the State to refund the money which it received and spent—and we may mention, by the way, that the first nq allotments on the unformed site of Auckland fifty-five years ago realised or the high average of £555 per acre. The views of the single taxer on the subject of pieum et tuwn when the property at stake is in the form of land, are peculiar. He meets all objections on the plea of justice by catch phrases about "un-

earned increment," and yet we have it on the authority of Professor Fawcett, with respect to Great Britain, that "if thirty years ago ;£ 100,000 had been invested in agricultural land, and if at the same time another had been invested in such first-class securities as railway, banking, insurance, water or gas shares, it can scarcely be doubted that if the latter investment had been made with ordinary judgment there would be at the present time a very much larger unearned increment of value upon the shares than upon the land."

And what of the " unearned increment " which the employer pockets in the shape ef profit represented by the difference between the wages paid to workmen and the amount realised by the sale of the product of these men's labour? It is not an unknown thing even among 415 that men have in this way so enriched themselves that ease and luxury were attained at a very early period in lireAre these vast accumulations 0' wealth to be considered sacred, and even protected against the burden of legitimate taxation, while the poor farmer or cottager's savings are filched by the Stale for national purposes ?

And, be it remembered, unlike the proposals of the out-and-out land nationalise^ the single taxer's process does not destroy monopoly in the occupation of land, it does not propose to re-distribute land through the! agency of the Government. The single taxer says Governments are far too corrupt to be trusted to attend to that. Mr George indicates what might happen under such a system of distribution on page 296 of his book, wherein he describes existing Governmental conditions in such phrases as these :— " Gross corruption and fraud,'' "constant under valuations of the CustonY-house,'"' "ridiculous urn ruth fulness of income tax returns," "absolute impossibility of getting anything like a just valuation of personal property," " douceurs to assessors," " bribes to Customs officials," " money expended in electing pliable public officers, or procuring acts or decisions which avoid taxation." Mr George claims as one o( the virtues of the single tax scheme that it enables the Government to virtually resume the ownership of the land without it becoming necessary " that the State should bother with the letting of lands, and assume the chances of favouritism, collusion and corruption that might involve."

The singe tax means, besides, the destruction of half the industries of the colony, the exposure of our wageearners to unrestricted competition with the sweated workers of East London and the low-priced labour of India, China, and Japan. Mr Edward Withy frankly acknowledges this and also believes it to be light. He says: "Of course, Mr George's system involves the abolition of Customs duties. The protectionists will probably be our strongest opponents. It is only fair that protectionists should know our views, and I would recommend to such a perusal of Henry George on 'Prelection and Free Trade.'"

And what are the promised gains from this scheme of wholesale spoliaiion ? Critically analysed they are chimerical in the extreme. The State would replace individuals as the ground landlord, and those who have no land would be relieved from taxation by the spoliation of present owners. After the general wreckage which would follow from the introduction of such a system, the accumulation of wealth, in houses and ships, and stocks and bonds would go on as before, with the simple exception that the Government would have converted to its own use private lands just as Henry the VIII. confiscated Church lands and appropriated them to the enrichment ot himself and his friends. The downfall of existing financial institutions, the closing of manufactories and the reduction of the farming community to the position of the Hindu ryot, would be poorly compensated for by the cheapening of some of the necessaries of life and a promise of old age pensions. New Zealand would indeed be a good country to leave for some land where thrift was encouraged and protected by a law founded upon different conceptions of common honesty.

We are told, however, that there is no danger of such a system being put in force without first receiving the sanction of the people by submission to a referendum. The promise conveys no security, because the single taxers says they do not contemplate the immediate enforcement of the full measure of their aims. As Mr Arthur Withy puts it—they will try a penny this year, plus the abolition oi exemptions under the land tax, in exchange for old age pensions, free kerosene, etc., and another penny next year, in order to double the pension. There is always an attraction about a proposal which promises good things to us by the sacrifice of somebody else, and we do not know how the votina on such a proposition might go if put to a poll of men and women who had not fully considered the ultimate consequences? We have seen lately how the cry for " free silver " —a mode of confiscation more rational and less pernicious than the single tax —caught on lately in the United States and threatened disaster to every financial institution in the country. But the chances are that in the application of the single tax principle there would be no poll and no remission of other forms of taxation. With every new call for money to finance a Government measure, men holding single tax views will employ their utmost exertions to have the burden placed entirely on the land, rather than secure its equitable distribution over every form of wealth. They are doing this now; and many

of those persons who clap their hands lustily when single-taxers proclaim their crude theory may one of these days stare with astonishment when they are brought face to face with the stern reality of having either to pay to the State annually a ground rent, or vacate the land they had years ago bought and occupied.