The Press. MONDAY. NOVEMBER 25. 1889.

Press, Volume XLVI, Issue 7476, 25 November 1889, Page 4

The Press. MONDAY. NOVEMBER 25. 1889.

There are two things about the agitation against the property tax which, although they do not come to much, are worth noticing. One is tuat it is certainly not the people who pay the tax who are the loudest grumblers against it; and the other that Auckland, which of the four large provincial districts pays so small a property tax as to be almost out of the running, seems to be the home of the agitation which is kept up against it. The total revenue derived from the property tax in"the year 1888-9 was £373,830, contributed by the provincial districts as follows :— Auckland £48,884 Taranaki 5,993 Hawke'a Bay. ... 21,163 "Wellington 57,075 Nelson 12,592 Marlborough... 7,378 Westland 1,246 Canterbury 106,446 Otago ... 113,053 It will be seen from the above return that about £220,000 of the total sum received was. collected from Canterbury and Otago alonej yet in those two districts there is not, as far as we are aware, any strong antipathy shown to the tax. The agitation against the tax has been mainly confined, as we have just said, to the Auckland provincial district. It is true that it has its opponents elsewhere also. But these opponents are, as we have shown on previous occasions, chiefly composed of political theorists who have views on the land question. They desire to see the property tax abolished, not so much because they dislike the tax itself, as on account of the fact that they are anxious to see a land tax take its place. According to the returns published In 1887 the real estate in the colony was valued at £116,376,659, and the personal property at £82,540,315. This, however, was not all taxable. The taxable real estate was £47,277,142, and the: taxable personal property was £43,505,538. If all the personal property, therefore, were exempt from taxation, and the whole burden placed on land the present tax would have to be nearly doubled. It requires little argument to show that under such a tax a most crushing; burden would be placed on the chief industry of the colony, while if the tax were placed on the unimproved value of the land it would, in numerous cases, amount to pure confiscation. The truth is that these Radicals who talk so loudly on the subject have absolutely no knowledge of the question.' They do not attempt to make themselves acquainted with the facts of the case, preferring, apparently, to base their agitation on class prejudice and popular ignorance of the bearings of their proposals. If they really tried to look into the matter they would see that under the property tax the land owners pay equally with the possessors of other kinds of property. They would further see that, as far as it goes, it falls upon people just exactly according to their means, and in that aspect carries out one of the great principles of taxation to the letter. They would further discover that, owing to the exemptions, a very large number of persons are not called upon to pay the tax at ail. According to a return before us, the tax in 1886 was paid by only 27,826 persons, and out of that number 2954 had to pay on less than £100, 3033 on less than £200; 2401 on less than £300; 1974 on less than £400; 1537 on less than £500. In other words, about 12,000 persons who paid the property tax paid on less than £500 in value, leaving the balance of the tax to be contributed by about 15,000 persons. Looking at the matter from auother point of view we find that of the 27,826 perspns who paid the tax no less than 9747 were described aa graziers, aheepfarmers, farmers, eettlerain the country,

&o. There were 380 I various kinde which paid. There t--1140 absentees who were called n** to contribute to the taxation*"* I the colony. Tradesmen, shopkeeiJ t storekeepers, numbering 4330 the tax. We have said V return from whioh we have be *& quoting ehowed that only 27 8?S If persons out of the total £ if the country paid, and included • i the list are a few admitted 1 wealthy persons and I It is instructive to note w B the figures really work JU 1 It is taken for granted in all I speeches that a progressive land i would fall heavily upon those I is asserted, possess the princfo! 1 wealth of the country in the shaped I land. Beginning with persona t£j I on property valued at £10,000 «S % over £5000 we tind the I' results :— ™ I

Number of Taxable valne el I taxpayers, property I 1409 under £10,000 | X Wl „ 20,000 U *W „ Bo,« 0 I 106 •. 100,000 E 48 „ 200,000 I 3o over 200,000 {§ Turning to another table deaiiu 1 with the number of owners of personj X property, and beginning again I those who have property valued over 1 £5000 and under £10,000, we find I the following to be the case :-~ B Persons. Companies. |§ 915 is 3 under £10,000 1 2 2t S » 000 ' 1 53 15 „ 100.000 . I *£ i; .. 200,000 1 , A over 200,000 I Iα other, words, out of 1409 perwua 1 who paid the property tax on property 1 valued at over £5000 and Lfo i £10,000 there were 945 persons and P twenty-three companies that wen H taxed on personal property, Of the 106 persons worth £100,000, fifty-three persons and fifteen companies had theh wealth in personal property, and bo on. The theory of those who advocate a progressive land tax ia .that eucfa 1 a tax is needed to punish tba *! owners of large estates. There Me&ie? large estate-owners in the colony m k admit, but is our taxation to fe \ framed for the simple purpose o! \ punishing these persons? "Whj | should the greatest industry the I colony has be singled out foi ! penal taxation on account of tbfrt I fact ? The property tax as Ji ! stands is a fair tax. It t&x« [ every man according to his meats, ■ No doubt it would be a good f thing for the colony were it reduced. | If we could only do without taxation \ altogether it would be a blessing ] hardly to be conceived of. But the 1 fates not being so propitious, and vn I being obliged, therefore, to tax J selves, we confess we cannot compw- I hend ths meauing of the existing | agitation. If the property tax ia dose | away with, or were subatantialh [ lowered, it must necessarily be re \ placed by another. The void oreated = must be filled up somehow. If we jj substitute for it a land tax, this must, | as we have already again and again ;| had to insist upon, be raised to an \ amount which would be simply oonfit- jh cation. The farmers, who are the U backbone of the colony, will be the h sufterers, and through them the colony t iteelf will be exposed to difiio\j\lUi | such as its worst fits of extravagsaia '§ have hardly yet brought upon k * It is, however, evidently the \ of the Opposition to make this th*i? % party cry, and it is necessary (hit , | every one should deal with ifc a t | practical issue which will certainly p have to be fought out at an early dse. | For ourselves we must say tW y it is not the kind of cry to | which, with any view of geCtiag | back to power, we should havflsuppOßs 1 any judiciously led party would have | been advised to commit itself. -II ] would have seemed to us a mere | matter of common-sense that if it be fair | to tax Bpeoxally one kind of property, | it must be still more obviously Bi? fe> | tax all kinds of property equaliy. li'% j true, no doubt, that our property t» | carries with it one fault of whioh it h \ impossible to rid it. It was proposed | originally by the Hall i and it has been adhered toeicceb/ J his successors on the same side of tue House. It has, therefore,-beefl the |j object of the undeviating £fei w S what is called the Eadical ffidefetiin jj the first. ' ' '4