Land Taxation and Tenure

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 150, 20 March 1936, Page 13

Land Taxation and Tenure

Sir, —In the contributed article under the above heading, it is stated that “Land has been the most-legislated-about subject in New Zealand.” May I add that the Question of land tenure has been the source of most wars aud acts of oppression throughout the world. It takes pride of place in the human mind in a natural way, because it is on and from land that the human must live. On the tenure of land depends the well-being of society. Land tenure is fundamental. Much is talked of and written about the taxation of land values. To those initiated. this means the taking from the so-called owners of the land a part of what by right belongs to the'eommunity as a whole. So much is acknowledged by everyone. This method of regaining for the people part of what is theirs by natural right, has been put into operation in many countries throughout the world by means of local body rating and national taxing of “land values.” It has been found by experience that such methods do not, in the slightest, mitigate the lot of the masses, who only see m such puny efforts a means of increasing the revenue of governments without in any way decreasing taxation. It is this tinkering with the question of land ownership that has led to the discrediting of the teachings and. philosophy of Henry George, one of the world’s greatest thinkers and humanitarians. A point made by those who advocate ouch methods is that it will do away with the land monopolist and speculator. That has not been the experience in any country. The land speculator thrives as well under the “taxation of land- values” as without it. As a result, the land monopolist and speculator, like the banks in the money question, are singled out for special vituperation. The New Zealand Legion toyed with a scheme similar to that of Major Douglas’s “Scheme for Scotland,” whereby no land transactions could take place between private individuals, but only between them and the State. Suposing such a scheme in operation, the land speculator would be put out of business and mortgaging of land done away with. But that would not stop the private individual getting away with the community’s share of production, as he does now, therefore no benefit would accrue to the masses. All “steps in the right direction” must likewise fail for the reason that none of them are of sufficient length to allow a distinct lightening of the burden imposed on labour and working capital by taxation. To-day society is on the brink of an abyss and big fundamental changes are necessary in order to save mankind from losing all he has gained from the past in the way of material advantage. Now, more than at any other time in the world’s history, is it imperative to give great relief to struggling humanity, and that can only be done by readjusting the prevalent ideas on the. ownership of property—to define what is and what is not the property of the individual and what the State. It is this definition of property which all past and present national leaders and economists boggle over. To define it correctly ’ would be to interfere with vested interests, with interests which are opposed to social welfare. But once the masses get n clear conception of this vital definition, there will be no talk of taxing land values by Id. or 2d. in the £. but n definite wholesale readjustment of property. That which belong* to the community as a whole —the annual rental value of all land within the Stab —will be taken in toto, by one act. by the then representatives of the people, and. correlatively, all taxation and rates will be abolished.. The so-called Socialistic legislation of

the ’9o’s was anything but radical. The buying-out of landowners was merely a gesture to the masses, blinding them to the fact that the landowner remained with the substance —the value of the land—which was still lost to them. So far as the landowner was concerned, things had oniy changed in name, instead of gathering land rent direct, he received “interest” on mortgage or “interest” on Government bonds, the first being land rent disguised, the second being a share of taxation money. The very few who got cheap land and prospered did so at the expense, not of the landowner, but of their follow-workers. Like the Kerensky Government ot Russia, they will cry out to the people to have patience while they, "little by little.” wrest justice out of the hands of th» monopolists so gradually that “society” will not be hurt in any way. The masses know nothing, and care less of the hurt that may come to those who “have” to-day. All they know is that they stand in need of great relief from the burden of taxation.- —I am, etc.. E. W. NICOLAI’? Wellington. March IS.