MR GEORGE FOWLDS AND THE SINGLE TAX.

Auckland Star, Volume XXVII, Issue 272, 16 November 1896, Page 2

MR GEORGE FOWLDS AND THE SINGLE TAX.

Mr Fowlds, in a letter which we publish elsewhere to-day, explains his proposals with regard to the single tax. As he thinks the " single tax " theory is only " in tbe academic stages," be intends at present only to doal out an academic dose of increased taxation on land. The mild instalment suggested is to forthwibh increase bbc land tax one penny and abolish existing exemptions, the money to be applied to providing an old age pension fund, and remitting tho duty on kerosene, and some other breakfast table duties. As Mr Fowlds asks the electors to endorse or condemn these proposals by their votes for him at the ballot box, ib is expedient that the people should understand exactly what their effect will be. We will take the case of a small farmer who is earning a scant living from land having an unimproved value of £500. Mr Fowlds coolly proposes to increase his taxation £4 3s 4d a year. For convenience of comparison we may mention thab the entire taxation of New Zealand in 1893 was ab tho rate of £3 lis 3d per head, of Victoria £2 3~ 3d, and ]New South Wales £2 6s. Mr Fowids' encouragomenb to tho struggling farmer, therefore, will be to more than double his present taxation, which ranks among the heaviest in the world. Assuming that the settler uses two tins of kerosene a yoar, he will save 4s from that source. His other probable savings from breukfast table duties are nob worth taking into account, for bhe fund.required to provide an old age ponsion for everybody over 65 years is variously estimated ab from £300,000 to £700,000 a year.

For the thrffty cottager dwelling in cities Mr Fowlds prescribes a more moderate bub still a substantial dose. We will take the ca6e of a man who has acquired a piece of land, worth £100, to erecb a houfe on. Mr Fowlds will exaeb from him 16s 8d a year for the privilege of holding his own land. Tho landlord, no doubt, will endeavour to ehunb the chargo on to his tenant; bub if he cannot do this he will, curtail conveniences in other diiectiona. We need not consider tho case of tho man who has spent say five or six thousand pounds for land on which bo erect business promisos. He may be trusted to shift the burden on to other shoulders somehow as he does his cu~toms taxation. Besides, in tho single taxer's view, ho is either a very wicked or very foolish man to spend so much money in buying property which in their opinion did not bolong to tho person who cold it to him.' The farmer certainly cannot shift it for his price* are ragulabed by an unrestricted competition. Nor can the cottager occupying bis own land.

Mr Fowlds challenge., tho public verdict on those propo. als. We have no hesitation in giving him our_. They nrp, in our opinion, as foolish and unjufct' as they would be disastrous to the bo-t interesbs of New Zealand if Parliament were so unwise as to attempt to enforce them.