LAND TAXATION.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVII, Issue 115, 17 May 1909, Page 2

LAND TAXATION.

FROM THE FARMERS' POINT OF VIEW. Referring to the remarks made by the Hon. Mr. Buddo at Pahnerston North on the subject of land taxation, the Farmers' Union Advocate of Saturday last says: — We have, hitherto, failed to see why land should be singled out for more and more taxation. The past year's returns shows that over £600,000 ' was raised by taxation from the land, as against some £280,000 from income. The return from land is not on an average more than 5 per cent, all told ; and traders do not begin to consider profits until all interest charges are deducted, including interest on iheir own capital. Nor should any venture be treated otherwise. With practically no risk, anyone can at present invest money to bring in a 5 per cent, return. If money is invested in land the owner has, therefore, a right to expect this interest to be a first charge, and any further net returns be considered as profit and recompense for his labour and enterprise in entering with the investment. By taking the selling value of the land the whole of this is capitalised, and the land-owner pays his tax upon it all. True, it may be argued that no tax is paid upon improvements. It is, however, notorious that, valuers first of all fix the unimproved value of the land — an arbitrary value which has no foundation by which it can bo proved — and then a small sum is added on for improvements. So it is quite wrong to say that improvements are not taxed, because to a very large extent they are included in the unimproved value of the laud, and if that is not enough they are further taxed through the mortgage tax, for, of course, the borrower pays that tax. Are we never to cry halt! to this ever increasing amount extracted by way of taxation from the land, from which all our prosperity conies? Are we to continue to penalise the comparatively small farmer by ever increasing valuations on a wrong basis? Have we no John Hampden amongst us who will rise to lead a crusade against what farmers conceive to be an unfair system? We had hoped that, a farmer himself. Mr. Buddo might have had some sympathy for his co-workers, but, he too,^ has evidently become only an apologist * and farmers must therefore continue their, so far, fruitless objections.