THE RATING POLL

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 86, 12 April 1927, Page 11

THE RATING POLL

(To the Editor.)

. Sir,—''To tax a man for building a house is equally ridiculous as taxing him for cleaning his teeth." By this statement in Mr. O Regan's last letter he exposes the fundamental error in his propaganda. A tax—that is a State or municipal tax—is not a penalty. It is nothing more than a contribution from members of the community towards the expense of public services. The first principle of such taxations, and a fair and reasonable principle so Ion" as there are variations in wealth, is that the burden.should be distributed so that it is borne as nearly as possible in proportion to each one's ability to pay. It is therefore, not fair and just that the man with a small house or small business premises yielding a moderate income should pay at the same rate as the owner of a mansion or an extensive Warehouse. If the nature and extent of the buildings are not considered (as in unimproved value taxation) then the owner of the land with a small, unpretentious building is paying more than his fair share and the owner ot the seven-story building is escaping his fair contribution. Let all ratepayers with properties carrying moderate-sized buildings remember in casting their votes on the poll that with unimproved value taxation they will be bearing a portion of the burden that should be borne, by the wealthy firms and 'Companies who own the large buildings.—l am, etc.,

(To the Editor.) Sir,—Stripped of. abuse. Mr. O'llegaii's figures in to-night'a "Post" are interesting, but not conclusive. On my rate demand the total.rates struck on the unimm-oved value i:otal 4.25 d. This rate on the alleged unimproved value, £15,173,499, is £270,591, or £22,033 more than Mr. O'Regan states was derived from the rate on the unimproved value. While admitting it is very good of Mr. O'Kegan to go to so much trouble to help the home-owner-occupier, surely it is up to the Mayor, Civic League candidates, and the various ratepayers' associations to lose no time in obtaining tho correct figures and putting them clearly and concisely before the ratepayers. On present information it appears that the change would produce-a rate of 5.03 din the £ on tho unimproved value, or £i 13s 10d on £200. This is doubtless very much less than the majority of .suburban pro-perty-owners are paying to-day. Trusting the ifsue wil get a fair go.—l am, etc., WAKE UP.

"J. am of opinion that candidates ought to declare themselves On the rating question," said Councillor J. Aston at Wades-' town last evening. "Personally, 1 have always stood for unimproved as against tho annual values;' and bolieve this to be the most equitable system of rating. When a proposal was recently before tho City Council to promote a poll in favour of rating on the annual value, 1 was one of four councillors who voted ngainst it. At the present time we have a 'half-and-half sort of system, partly or annual value, and partly or unimproved valuo. The issue before you should present no difficulty. \ou sire asked to vote for the principle that the whole of the rntcH shall be struck and payable on the basis of unimproved values. 'Vote for it."

E. Morris suggests tlmt as the value of lands is created by the whole oi the citizens with the aid of governing bodies, it is a better mibject for taxation than the buildings which ace private financial affairs. If a citizen builds a fine residence or improves an existing one, tho council has no moral right to increase his vateß for spending hiR own money. Exemption of improvements from rates would encourage better building and other iipimivementH.