THE H.B. TRIBUNE. TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1912. LAND MONOPOLY.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume II, Issue 132, 21 May 1912, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE. TUESDAY, MAY 21, 1912. LAND MONOPOLY.

What objects Lave Mr. Stevenson and other Singletaxcrs in view in advocating the removal of all the taxes now imposed, and substituting the eystoin of taxing land values ! Let us be clear oil this point. Wo take it that they honestly believe that it will remove the burden of taxation from the shoulders of those who are poor—those who have nothing; but what they earn by the sweat cf their brow—-and put it on the broad fat bucks of the landowners and land speculators, also that it will compel the land monopolist to sell his land or make him work it to produce to its fullest capacity. Is this the object ! We can see no othei. Vcr.v well, then. Let us endeavour to anticipate v.hat the effect of the system will be if adopted in New Zealand. Let us discuss che incidence of the land values tax. As Mr. Stevenson says, under it city, suburban, and rural lands will be subject to the tax on their values, i.e., the gieater the value of the land a man owns, irrespective of area, tlie bigger his contribution to the State revenue will be. The owner may use the land himself, he may lease it to others, or he may hold it for speculation. The land Mih’.e taxer contends that m the case of the owner-user cf the land, it a fariner. will pay a direct tax to the Government for tin? privilege of using- the land lie lias bought and paid for, while his farm labourers, and his storekeeper who occupy leased premises, will not pay any tax. In the case of the owner-user of suburban, town or citv lands.-that mai will pav the tax, and his servants, employees, or workers, call them what voii will, will get oft' scctt free. In the ease of the owner who lets or leases his land, be it farm land-, or occupied for business, or dwelling, he, the owner, will pa/' the L" x and his tenants will escape all such painful obligations. In other words the land value taxer rejoices in the belief that tlie actual owners of the land will pay the tax while every other section of the community will pet contribute cue penny piece to the State Tro.''.s'.u”'. Nov.' let us uy

: to fcros.ee what retiliy would happen j under the single tax system. Tne ! freehold farrm r would have to pay i right enough. There would be no escape for him. He eanr.ot, pass it cn; because his products have to ccmnc'e in the world's market, aud ?i-> m.-.G -r wlmt his expenses aie his r r 'id nee v. ill .cot i bi -orc innii the market price in tn? fixing of v,Lid: he has no rentin'!. The thrifty worh-r v.ho hr- hi- iiAle_ freehold i;i in town or sußuio will also pov .lie tax- In.'- also lias r.o one hr P-ir. pa-.. -J.e b.iiJe-i ,»n io. But will hap'-,eii in il.c ease cf Lire men the laud vab.io taxers hope to got at - -the land owner who, accord-

ing to them, farms the farmer, the town landlords who rack-rent the workers, the investors who sit in soft places and draw big rents from city shops, warehouses, and offices. What will just happen is that these men—these “fat men''—will quietly pass it on, and if the law prevents their making a direc*, demand for the tax from their tenants, they will so adjust their rent books that the tax gets on the occupiers’ backs all the same. In a like manner the merchants and shopkeepers, to meet their tax demands, will increase the price of the goods they sell and so pass it on to the user and consumer who invariably pay the taxes of the country they live in. But under the land values tax the freehold farmer will be doubly penalised, he being a consumer as well as a producer of export goods, the prices of which are uncontrolled by local conditions. In this way the tax falls heavily upon the very men the State should subsidise, because they are the backbone of the country. Locking into the effect the land values tax. if carried to the extreme limit of the singletaxers’ ambition, would have on the industrial system of the Dominion, we are forced to wonder what the workers would have to say. According to the advocates of the system, the Government should take the land rents and abolish all other duties, and it is an essential part of their patron saint’s theory that once j this is done complete freedom of con-1 tract and of trade can safely be permitted to prevail. In other words protection of local industries would be abandoned, restrictions on employers to pay statutory rates of wages and limit the hours of work would be withdrawn. Asiatic immigration would be permitted, and there would be the freest competition all round. The ‘'Christchurch Evening News,” dealing with the industrial feature of the single tax system, says: “Thus the beautiful old doctrine of the survival of the fittest can be given the fullest application if only the State is the sole landowner or the collector of all the rent. One cannot help wondering what the workers would do to Mr. Withy and his brother single taxers if the Government adopted their view and put. it into force. When the workers found themselves losing jobs to foreigners and Asiatics who were willing to work for a third of the present rate of wages or less, there would be a revolution that would shake society to its foundations, and the martydom the authors of the mischief would undoubtedly be called upon io undergo would be but a small incident in a turmoil that would take years to subside.”