HUTT RATING POLL

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 108, 7 May 1926, Page 10

HUTT RATING POLL

(To thi Editor.)

Sir, —In your issue of this evening, "Earnest Inquirer" asks for certain information in connection with the system of rating on unimproved values, and with your permission I will endeavour to supply the same. First, your correspondent asks what would be the difference between the rate levied under tho present system on a section costing, say, £150, with a house and shop thereon costing £1000. I can only construe his question as referring to a property having a capital value of £1150, and of which the unimproved value is £.150. Under the present system the county rates are levied on the whole or capital value, and as far as I can see from the latest statistical report on local government, the rate on the capital value is approximately ljd in the £. If rating on unimproved values is adopted on "Wednesday next, the rate will be approximately doubled, and will be levied only on the unimproved value. In other words, the house and shop representing a value of £1000 will be exempt, and the rate struck on the unimproved value of £150 only. Accordingly, it would appear that at present the annual rate is £5 5s 9d, but under the new system it will be £1 8s Id. Your correspondent further inquires how the new system would affect a farmer owning 400 acres. My reply is that it is impossible to answer the question unless he gives the capital and unimproved value of the property. The rate is levied on value, not on area, and unless we have the valuation, as we have in his first question, the second question cannot be answered. Your correspondent may rest assured, however, that the vast majority of the ratepayers will pay less under the system of rating on unimproved values than they do under the present system, and this applies to all classes, including farmers. The explanation is that th,e great majority of the ratepayers are not mere speculators, but workers. The average man who buys a section does so for the purpose of improving it. Under the present system he taxes himself automatically by making improvements, and the more improvements he makes the higher his taxation. Naturally such a system commends itself to that small and self-important minority who indulge in the luxury of getting rich at the public expense. Improvers should realise that their interest lies in defending themselves from unjust taxation, and in compelling people who traffick in land to bear a greater proportion of the public burdens. After all the new system will take from nobody what belongs to him, but it will only take for public purposes a small fraction of that fund, which, on every principle of justice and expediency, belongs to the community. As indicating the popularity of ±he system of rating on unimproved values with the farming community, I may point out a few facts. There are 129 counties in New Zealand, of which 46 have adopted the new system. Only in two counties have polls been unsuccessful, and of these, that in Masterton County failed by two votes only. Here are the figures for a few of the counties: — County. For. Against. Akitio '.'... 112 32 Bay of Islands . 490 187 Cheviot 165 41 Collingwood .... 126 10 Eketahuna 149 21 Great Barrier ... 63 7 Hauraki Plains .. 301 14 Hokianga 109 25 Inglewood 160 25 Kawhia 96 7 Manawatu ..,. 677 193 Otorohanga .... 321 42 Stratford ....^. 399 23 Takaka 136 40 Thames 510 110 Uawa 260 89 Waikohu 167 7 The foregoing figures speak for themselves, and are a sufficient commentary on the reckless and uncalled-for assertion that rating on unimproved values is unpopular with the farming community.—l am, etc., P. J. O 'BEGAN. sth May :