RATING ON UNIMPROVED VALUES.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 10973, 24 May 1901, Page 2

RATING ON UNIMPROVED VALUES.

TO THE EDITOR OP THE TEESS-j.. Sir,—The tax on unimproved values has recently been given fresh stimulus, owing to I alteration in * tbe .-law.-■ reducing-, a. three- ' fifths mrjoritv to a bare majority for its adoption, and a well-known ex-member of the Hon©, of Representatives is making a tour 61 various towns in the North Island, advocating the advantages of this system of taxation. This gentleman's success so far has been quite phenomenal, and reflects great credit on his oratorical ability. There appears from reports in the papers to be practically no other side to the question, and most" enquirers for further information at the meetings are invariably disposed of by the fluency of the lecturer and general sympathy of*the audience. It seems to mc a. public duty to* point out to your readers that the tax is a wry unjusfc one, simply creating one wrong to remove another. It i 8 stated that where it has been adopted land is practica_ly becoming imsa-leable. Some three years ago this question (which, by the- way/is not at all a new one, as many are led to believe) cropped up m ■Melbourne, and was strongly advocated ,by persons who had invested their money 111 buildings during the boom period, and which w__e not then producing very good returns, and they were naturally anxious to shift some of their taxation on to the other fellow, who possessed unimproved land. The result was an interesting correspondence in the Melbourne "Argus,'' m which it was plainly demonstrated that a poor mail, with a small cottage, would pastil© some amount of .tax as a wealthy neighbour, possessed of a large mansion, provided both allotments were equal in size. Tip most plausible argument adopted by this i method of taxation is that a person erecting buildings increases the value of adjoin- | ing or contingent vacant land, and that his ! rates are thereby increased, while the owner of the vacant, land obtains the advantage o£ other people's improvement- and contributes nothing towards it. There can be no denying the truth of the latter contention, but the remedy is not far to seek, and has apparently been overlooked by disinterested advocatf-s of the system. Neither can it be denied that in many towns in the colony land has been purchased or held for speculative purpose*, which has only paid a nominal amount of taxation. The main source of municipal revenue is necessarily obtained fic-ra ov, ricrs of land and buildings, consequently if land with buildings and vacant lands were.pquitably a.s.ssed at their current value, and rated accordingly, there would bo no further demand for taxation of unimproved values. —Yours, etc., cms. Christchurch, May 23rd.