RATING ON THE UNIMPROVED VALUE OF CITY PROPERTY.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 168, 29 July 1901, Page 2

RATING ON THE UNIMPROVED VALUE OF CITY PROPERTY.

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—The rating on unimproved values appears to be one of the topics of discussion at present, and a good many of the working class think it will be in their favour. Now, sir, I think a good many are greatly deceived. I am a working man, and i* does not make any difference to me which way the value is taken, but I am prepared to show that rating on unimproved values is in favour of the speculating, moneyed men, and not that of poor men. Those men who advocate rating on unimproved values are the very men who want to take advantage of the working man. Anyone ought to know for himself that he who has the largest property ought to pay the most rates. I hope all men will look carefully into the matter 1 for themselves, and not vote for it in the city. If the City Council adopt that system of rating they will make a great mistake. —1 am, etc.,

A WORKING MAN,

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —In again troubling you on this question, my only object is a desire to try and make things easier for the masses, and prevent the few from getting rich at the cost of the many, which this mode of rating is certain to do. I maintain that rating on the unimproved value in this city will not place the burden on "rent," and that rating on "rental value" will do so.

1 have a vote in a country district, and my vote helped to carry the proposal to rate on the unimproved value, and exempt improvement on the lajid. This seems strange, no doubt, to people who have not "thought out" the subject, as I would not vote for the proposal in this city. The results and effects are entirely different in country and town lands. In country districts the lands are chiefly used for growing grass, crops, ' etc., and can. only produce about as ! much products as land situated miles away, if only the same labour is expended in improvements on the land, | but in a city it is quite different. In \ case of a man distributing —say cloth- j ing—and manufacturing little or nothing, the large number of people* passing enables him to extract large"; sums from the people that other men in less frequented streets cannot extract. If only the land is taxed it is easy to see that the wealthy man can build over his clothing shop offices, let to lawyers and others at big rentals, who in turn are fleecing the people and drawing "rent" in many ways, but must not be taxed because the land must be the same value as the next unused allotment. I will grant that it will tend to keep town lands low in price for some time, but that j will enable owners of large buildings to buy cheap. It cannot be disputed that people must be drawing "rent" before they can pay taxes under present mode of rating, but in case of poor men owning unused land within the boundary they are not drawing rent. The change will make no difference to the rich; other than the moderately rich will give the very rich men a chance of taking from the moderately rich without increasing hi 3 own burden, owing to land falling in value. The argument about the poor man who adds a few rooms to his house, or a workshop in his back yard, being taxed for making the improvement, is a very shallow thinker's argument. While money yields interest, or rent, or in any way earns money, or, still deeper, while labour products yield a "profit," it cannot be a burden on labour if the improvements are taxed to the full extent of the profits earned. If I put an addition to my house I do it either to save "rent" or to make money in some way that would benefit me. If ships or buildings yield a profit on the investment the addition to the house must do the same, or I would buy a ship and rent a house. Labour will not in any way be benefited by cheap land, and labourers will find work scarce and times bad for all classes if we do not encourage "free investment" of money in "land value," simply because "land value" itself is used to employ labour. The "rentyielding power" of the community is based on the private ownership of land, and increases with the prosperity of the people, but there is such a thing as a "fictitious" land value, which, if circulated and invested, must prove a curse to the whole people.—l am, etc.,

A. SANPORD.

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —As we are threatened wi*h a revolution in the method of valuing and rating city properties may I solicit space for the following, sta/tements as to the bearing which the proposed alteration -would have upon the future, also the abstract equity of itaxing land values only?

Adam Smith lays down four maxims with regard to taxation, viz., equality, certainty, convenience, and economy. He Bays: "The subjects of every State ought to contribute towards the support, of its government as nearly as possible in proportion to their respective abilities, that is, in proportion rto the revenue which they enjoy under ■the protection of Vhe State."" Mill and Fawcefct say: "Equality of taxation as a maxim of politics means equality of sacrifice on the part of contributors." This canon of political economy has been accepted almost universally in all well-wttrverned communities, ate being as nearly as possible the ideal of taxation. It is now proposed by an energetic section of faddists to abolish all this, and substitute therefor the dicta of Mr Henry George, that all taxation should be placed upon land.

Are not the advantages of the municipal services rendered as mnch, if not more, for the benefit of the houses' erected on the land, as for the benefit of the land merely? What are the municipal services? Roads and footpaths, drainage, water supply, fire

prevention, bath*, libraries, parks, etc. Should not the owners of house property (as apart from the land upon which it is built) contribute their fair share towards the benefits of such services, in which they participate fnl'ly? Having the foregoing in vierw, ratepayers moist not neglect to vote upon the question. The poll is on August 6 next, and they should also bear in mind the following facts: —

1. That ithe rating on the unimproved value (a) reduces the taxation upon nearly all hotels, the two arcades (Victoria and Strand), and all large buildings where the value of improvements (building's) is more than the value of the land upon which they are built by at least one-third, and in notable instances more than half what they are paying at present;; (b) increases the taxation in numerous instants by more than double to leaseholders and others who occupy shops and houses which are of less value than the land upon which they stand. Leaseholders would suffer a gross injustice, as they are usually bound fby the conditions of lease to pay all municipal rates. Queen-street furnishes numerous instances of this iniquity, if persisted in. 2. If rating on unimproved values is adopted, it may be a temporary gain to a number of ratepayers, especially in suburban wards —that is to say, there will be a reduction in the amount of their rates for one or perhaps two years, the deficiency being made good by penalising other ratepayers, not on the basis of the rental value of their properties, but according to an arbitrary assessment of a most oppressive character in many cases. After considerable disturbance, the inexorable la-w of supply ami demand musi prevail, and the small freeholder, who now bases his calculations upon a threepenny ra»te on the unimproved value, wid have to face a steadily increasing rate.

3. It should not be lost sight of that this is the revival of the pernicious single 'tax fad, which had its origin in Prance, enjoyed an ephemeral existence, and expired amidst derision and ridicule. It is the application of the well-known single tax policy of penalising the ownership of land up to the point of confiscation, in order tha<t ,the .State should own it, being one step further towards land nationalisation.' —I am; etc.,

CITIZEN.