TAX ON INCOME, OR ON LAND?

Dominion, Volume 29, Issue 202, 23 May 1936, Page 11

TAX ON INCOME, OR ON LAND?

Fundamental Difference

MR. O’REGAN REPLIES TO MR. MATHESON "By a curious coincidence,” said Mr. p. .1. O'Regan to a "Dominion” representative yesterday. "I had written the historical resume of the income tax appearing in ‘The Dominion’ in Thursday's issue before you had published the interview witli Mr. AV. B. Alatlieson advocating the raising of revenue from incomes only, on Alay 19. .1. must, respectfully submit that Mr. Alatheson favours the income tax because (1) he fails to appreciate tlie fundamental distinction between a tax on earnings that is to say, on the production of wealth—and a tax on the unimproved (or community) value of land, and (2) lie fails to realise that while a man’s income is a secret, the value of land is a matter of public notoriety. "The first point is well illustrated by Henry George in ‘Progress and Poverty,’ wherein lie illustrates his argument bv the story of Hyder AH s tax on date trees: Hyder Ali imposed a tax on date trees, whereupon his subjects proceeded to cut date trees down, lie then superseded the tax on date trees by a tax on the land, whether date trees were grown thereon or not, and thereafter his subjects began to plant as many date trees as possible. Jibe truth here illustrated is further reinforced when we recollect that in the days of the window tax in England people built houses with as few windows as possible’ "As for the second point, no tax is comparable to the land tax for ease and cheapness of collection. AVhen we shall have realised Henry George’s doctrine in full—as all assuredly will some day —the entire cost of collecting the single tax will be the present cost of valuation —not a penny more I The expense of valuing the land, in other words, will be the same whether we take the whole unimproved value for revenue or whether we adhere to the present beggarly pittance of £-170,000 annually, and of course there will be no prosecutions for concealment for the very good reason that concealment will be impossible. Further, we will be rid of the need for inquisitorial prying into private affairs which is inevitable under the income tax.

“The bearing of this great question on the welfare of the people will be fully realised when we see that land is not wealth but the source of wealth, and hence that the ownership of land, though a different thing from the ownership of wealth, gives a privileged few the power of commanding wealth — other people’s wealth. “Let me illustrate: AVhen the manna fell for the sustenance of the Chosen People of old, by great good fortune it fell on the desert, which was no man’s land, and so everyone was enabled to gather as much as he needed. How different would have been the position had the desert been the private property of a few! .In that ease the landlords would have collected everything except enough to provide a bare living for the landless mass of their fellows. Nowadays, however, the manna continues to fall as of old but In different form. A few days ago the Hon. R. Semple projected the expenditure of £17,500,000 in the next two and a half years. Already before a i>enny has been expended or a pick struck, the value of land has, hardened—not no man’s land, however, but the private domain of a privileged few. Hence, unless the coming Budget makes provision for the collection of the manna in the form of a proper land value tax, the workers will get huts in which to live for a year or two and a living wage for the same period. Thereafter they will be looking for more work, while the fortunate few will be permanently enriched by the labour of their landless fellow-men. 'Need I say more to prove the fundamental importance of the land tax and the irreconcilable difference between it and tlie income tax?”