LAND RATE V. PROPERTY RATE.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXI, Issue 120, 22 May 1900, Page 3

LAND RATE V. PROPERTY RATE.

(To the Editor..

Sir, —Some years ago (1891) it was decided to abolish property tax and in place thereof to levy a land tax. This has had a grand effect on the colony every way. At the time of the change it was almost bankrupt, trade nearly as stagnant as it was possible to be, population leaving our shores by every boat. But now see the change. The col cmy has an ever increasing surplus, business is brisk, many factories and .mills working overtime, our population increasing rapidly, not only from excess of births over deaths, but also from excess of arrivals over departures.

From this later cause alone it having gained 22,742 persons during the six years immediately succeeding the change, whereas the six years last before the change recorded a loss of 17,194. This marked alteration in the aspect of affairs having occurred just at the moment when the change in tho incidence of taxation took pla,ce, there is, of course, no doubt whatever it was this thai brought it about. The argument? adduced at the time in favour of it have all proved correct. This being- so, has not the time arrived when the same change should take place in the method cf levying our municipal rate, which at the present is nothing but a locally-levied property tax, the rate being stmck on the gross annual value of all properties (less 20 per cent). 'This, like the dead and buried property lax. ir, a fine on industry and

enterprise. If a man has a vacant allotment or a section with an old aud poor building ot: it, and uecides to put up o building on the former or to replace the buildingstandingon the latter with something far superior and an ornament to the city, he has no sooner completed his improvements than the city valuer comes along and raises his assessment. 1 speak very feelingly, as 1 have been there myself. A.few years ago I secured a building in a leading srreet in this city, spent over £ 700 na improving the same, with what result? Why, my rates the following' year amounted to £13 (exclusive of water rate) move than they were the year before. Is this just? Is it even expedient? For what are the rates used? For roads, slreet lighting and clean ing. drainage (usch as it is), etc., etc. Did my spending £700 in improvements to my property put the City Council to any further expenses? Those who leave their land vacant escape al most scot free, although all the conveniences and necessities for which rates are levied are equally as available to the unused ground. The general effect of n change to rating on unimproved value would, as a natural consequence, be as marvellous as that produced by the similar change in colonial taxation, still further life would be infused into the city, numerous old and dilapidated building, would be pulled down (without an order from the health officer), fine structures would be erected in. their stead, and vacant aloltments-built, on as soon as it ceased to be a punishable offence to make improvements. Queen street would soon lose its remaining relics of bygone days, much to the. advantage of architects and all in any way connected with the builclmg trade. I would respectfully ask every man to calculate for himself how this alteration in rating- would affect his own pocket, and he will find that to all, excepting those avlio own vacant allot merits or properties where the value of the land is more than about 95 per cent, of the value of xTie buildings, the change would be much in their favour, and I have no hesitation in saying that it is a more just method of raising the necessary local revenue. I commend this question to all citizens,particularly ly the working men, who. although they may not pay rates directly, decidedly do so in their rent. A reduction in the rates paid by the landlord would mean, for a certainty, a reduction in rent, and a reduction in rent is equivalent to.an increase of wages. Thus, if a property is valued at £900 (buildings £300 and land _£100).-the rates at present would be about £4 per annum, if a land rate were to be imposed instead of the property rate, the annual amount payable under this head, to equal the total amount now raised, would have to be 3d in the £ of capital value. The land comprised in the above named property is valued at £100, the 3d rate would therefore amount to 25/ per annum, a saving to the owner of £2 15/. Apologising for so long a letter, but offering as an excuse the enormity of this 'wrong which needs resistance."—T am, etc..

J. H. PHILLIPS.