LABOUR AND RATING

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21449, 15 April 1935, Page 18

LABOUR AND RATING

TO TH« EDITOR 0* THE TRIB3. Sir,—Mr P. J. O'Regan's dissertation upon the virtue of the single tax is of interest. He, as an advocate of land nationalisation, can see v nothing but good in the system of rating on unimproved value. Too long have we listened to the theorist and the faddist in this connexion. I agree that taxation in a civilised community is inevitable, but Mr O'Regan approaches the subject from the point of view that private ownership of land is iniquitous. Raise every rate on the value of the land only, he urges. Where does the system lead us? Take one example in Christchurch. A large block of flats in the city is built upon land that is valued at £1930. The capital value of the property is £37,000. Under the systems in vogue in Christchurch, unimproved for general and special loan rates, capital for drainage and hospital, and annual for water, the rates levied on that property were £2OB. Under the unimproved system which Mr O'Regan assures us "is eminently just" the total rate to be snlit up between the Christchurch City Council, the North Canterbury Hospital Board, the Christchurch Drainage Board, the Christchurch Domains Board, the Christchurch Fire Board, the Waimakariri River Trust would be a modest £45. I suggest that rate would not be a reasonable amount to pay for water alone. It would not be a reasonable amount for this property to contribute to hospital and charitable aid. Under this "eminently just" system there is no regard to service rendered. The cottager with a quarter of an acre has to pay as much as the mansion owner, with a palatial residence on a quarter acre in the same locality. Let me assert my disinterestedness In this question by saying that if Mr O'Regan's "eminently just" system had been wholly in vogue last year I would have been saved £ip. In spite of this I could not support it. In spite of Mr O'Regan's advocacy it seems still a good principle of taxation that taxes should fall upon those best able to bear them.—Yours, etc.. M. E. LYONS. April 13, 1935. TO F.-3ITO* Of Tflr PK»SS. Sir,—l agree with Mr Regan that a poll should be taken on the rating question. We should do away with rating on unimproved value. If a poll of the ratepayers were taken it would be done away with so far as Christchurch is concerned. I and many others who supported it years ago would be glad of a change. It served a good purpose in forcing holders of vacant sections to build. There are now very few vacant sections in the older parts of the town, such as Sydenham, Waltham, Addington, Linwood, Christchurch Central, or St. Albans. It is only in the new suburbs that there are any, and even

then there are not enough of them to justiiy rating on unimproved values. It benefited the poor man as against the speculator; now it taxes the poor man for the benefit of the rich. Under |t the poor man with a house of, say, £BOO on an eight*! o£ aft acre would ■•y twice as much in rales as a richer i pin with a £2OOO house on a six- \ wantb of acr*, The xaimg on the

unimproved values has served its purpose and it should go.—Yours, etc., A.B. April 13, 1935.