THE RATE QUESTION

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 100, 30 April 1931, Page 12

THE RATE QUESTION

MR. LUCKIE ANSWERS CRITICS

It had become necessary, said Mr. M. V. Luckie, the independent Mayoral candidate,- last night, to answer critics who had challenged his statements regarding the impossibility of making considerable reductions in the rates. He had been accused of ignorance in tho matter. As he had said at Island Bay, the position was that the total rate revenue was between £525,000 and £530,000 last year, and 10 per cent, of this was upwards of £52,000. It had, j however, to be borne in mind that about three-fifths of that amount, roughly about £320,000, was permanently recurring debt representing hospital and charitable aid rates, and rates pledged to provide interest and sinking fund on outstanding loans, which not only cannot bo reduced, but would probably be increased by between £10,000 ancl £13,000 this year, as a result of the first payment of interest and sinking funds on recently-raised loans, which have not hitherto been a burden on the rates. The following day Mr. Sievwright had stated that Mr. Luckie had not defined what was payable on the trading loans and what was payable on the dead-weight loans,.the latter accounting for £130,000, equal to 6 per cent, interest on £2,000,000. The rest was made up of trading loans, and that interest was all deducted from the earnings of the trading departments. Mr. Luckie pointed out that on 24thApril he had said:—"lf Mr. Sievwright had made the slightest inquiry he would know that no rates whatever are levied in respect of the electric lighting, tramways, milk departments, because they are all paying their interest and sinking funds out of the profits earned." On the 28th, Mr. Sievwright said: "He (Mr. Luckie) ought to know that ihe electricity. trannvuys, and milk departments have paid their own interest and charges out of their own revenue." Let the public form its own conclusions, said Mr. Luckie.

It was inaccurate to assume that all the loans were at 5 per cent., as the great bulk of them were at 51 per cent, and v 3-S per cent. It was also worthy of emphasis that while none of! them, was at less than 1 per cent, for sinking fund, some were at 2 per cent, 24 per cent., 4 per cent., and even 5-J per cent, for sinking funds, representing a permanent burden that could not be reduced until the loans were paid off. The total rates levied for the year ended 31st March, 1931, were 5167-200 d, or practically 5 4-5 din tho £, on the total unimproved value of about £22,000,000. Of this, 2 l-5d in the £1 was general rate, producing £200,000 available for the annual administration of the city. Tho whole of the rest, ." 3-sd, was for interest hih! .sinking fund for the hospital rate and for current loans that, with the exception of some £IS,OOO or £20,000 profit, on water, were dead-weight loans. Calculating 3 3-Sd on £22,000,000 showed about £34.0,000, which, less the profit .on water, was required to cover interest and sinking fund on loans which did not include any of tho trading loans of the ..'ouneil, and was not subject to reduction. Any reduction made in the rates had to come off the general rate.