THE UNEARNED INCREMENT.

Press, Volume XLVIII, Issue 7922, 23 July 1891, Page 3

THE UNEARNED INCREMENT.

TO THE EDITOR OT THE PRESS. Sir, —I am at a loss to understand the attitude of those who insist that property in land is in any respect different to property in any other form. If I buy a section I pay for it precisely in the same way as if I purchased Government bonds. In both cases hard cash passed, in the one case the money going to the Government to be expended on roads and bridges, and in the other (i.e., Government bonds) the money being used in the same way. In purchasing a section I take my chance of it rising in value, but it may not. I know of scores of cases of persons who have bought land from the Crown at £2 per acre years ago,and who would gladly take thirty shillings for it now. They not only lose a portion of thencapital, but in many cases have received no interest in the interval. If money invested in land which has increased in value is to be specially taxed, money which has been invested in land which haa fallen in value

should be specially assisted. It ia said that in the case of the land which has increased in value that such increase haa not been " earned." There are other forms of investment hi a precisely similar position. Take our bonds. Only a few years ago New Zealand securities were worth very much less than they are now. The price got for the .£5,000,000 loan of 1879 was only 81i for a 4 per cent. loan. Now our 4 per cents, are worth 102- Those who bought the £5,000,000 loan have made the difference between the 81_ and 102, and they have not " earned " it. They had nothing whatever to do with the increase in tbe value of our stock, but they are richer by the rise. That rise was an "unearned increment." Yet Mr Ballance says that to tax our bonds would be ''robbery." Why is it not " robbery" to tax the " unearned increment " in land t Yours, &c Economist.