THE H.B. TRIBUNE. SATURDAY, MAY 25, 1912 LAND MONOPOLY.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume II, Issue 136, 25 May 1912, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE. SATURDAY, MAY 25, 1912 LAND MONOPOLY.

We do not wish to disappoint Mi. Arthur AAGthy,. whose letter wc publish to-day, but honesty compels ns to say that we cannot derive much enlightenment from his correspondence on the land question. The inability to see how land taxation would lower the price of buttei m London appears to him to be an outrage upon accepted political economic. teaching—an outrage of which no respectable journal would be guilty. In the first place, for the purpose of ordinary argument, is it necessary to style every holder of land a monopolist ? According to AVebstor a monopolist is a person who favours monopoly or one who enjoye a monopoly, i.c., an exclusive power or right. The owner oi freehold land in the Dominion must therefore necessarily bo a monopolist because he claims to have the “exclusive right” to the bit of mother earth which the Jaw allows him to call his own, a right, also, by the way, which Henry eGorge, would not deprive him of. Therefore, there appeared to us some grain of wisdom in saying the term “land monopoly should be given a wide interpretation. A man may have the monopoly of half an acre or half a county, but he docs not prevent some other person from holding land also if there is any left for sole. Obviously, then, while land is available for those who want it there is no monopoly. There is plenty of land available for those who have the money to buy it, and it is no use blaming the present landowners because the price of produce upon the London market has put up the price of land to all would-Ee landowners. It is very easy for eno who lives, eats and sleeps with the theory cf land taxation to talk of the millions of acres of land held by

■' certain percentages cf people and j point to the revenue that would be 1 derived from punitive taxation, but j" little practical knowledge might temper the keen edge of Mr. Withy’s j political dissecting knife. It is also ■ probable our correspondent has not taken the adv : ce of the Government statistician and refrained from confusing land occupation with land ownership. A) e do not propose to follow Mr AA ithy through his maze of figures but it might bo well to turn to the Year Bock and see what that has to say about the occupation cf land. A table sets forth the number ami size cf the holdings for the last five years and the footnote reads: "Of a total cf 73.867 holdings shown above, 38. i 7 ’. <;r 51.(37 per cent were from I co 100 acres in extent ; 48,920. c,r Cti.22 per (im. v.e-re from I t<; 2(><i

acres; and 56,003, or 75.81 per cent, were from 1 to 320 acres in size. The total number over 320 acres was only 17,873, or 24.19 per cent, of the whole, thus indicating a considerable degree of moderately close settlement, although the area of holdings over the 320 limit necessarily shows as very large in a table which includes Crown and pastoral leases.” These figures show 7 , for one thing, that we have no land monopoly in the strict sense of the term, because land is steadily being made available for closer settlement. It also shows that when Mr. Withy talks about the unimproved condition of land owned by monopolists he has emitted to observe the fact that the Crcwn is the land owner who improves the least, and it is the pastoral runs for which Government receives its rent (sometimes even a bit more than Ricardo would have allowed in his economic balance) that are minus improvements. To speak of 24 million acres being unimproved in the hands of squatters is pure twaddle. With wool, mutton, and other land products fetching top prices at Home, is it likely this land would be left idle ? The fact is that a great portion of the land held n big holdmgs cannjt be materially improved, and a trip or two into the c-nintn m ght bring this conviction .home to cur correspondent. It is unquesLionabij sometimes ieir h°id upen the m-.n driven into the back country in search of cheap land, but it i» net the “land monopolist” who has put up the land value, because Mr. Withy assures us all value has been created by the community, ’therefore it is the community wnicti drives the man back on cheap larrn ] I and the land owner whom it is desir-1 ! ecl to crush with a confiscatory tax. i with due apology to Mr. Withy, we cannot see now me price of land can be affected by putting a tax on the high value which seme men have paid for their holdings. It might ruin the men who had bought at high prices and lower the margin of profit to others, but it would not affect the price which the .London merchant was prepared to pay tor his produce from New Zealand. Unless we deal with the speculative clement the value of land is what can be made from its products, and with butter fat at from lid. to 1/2, land “ necessarily more valuable than it ' would be with butter fat at 6d. Will ; a confiscatory land tax alter the [ price of butter in London ’? Mr. I Withy holds that his system cf col- ! laring the economic rent for the use I cf the State will bring more farmers i to the country’ and foodstuffs will be | produced in much greater quantii tics and more, cheaply. V) ell, supi posing for instance, the “land monI opclist” had his wings clipped and ! the price cf land by economic taxa- | tion was reduced by 50 per cent, and ' the price of produce in London rei mained the same, dees Mr. Withy ’ labour under the fond delusion that the transport monopoly would not J put up the freight rates 1 Does he : think the commercial monopolies ; through which vve are compelled to ' deal would not put their charges up I also 'I Would not every monopoly I through which our produce passed i demand its full economic rent also •/ I Wc are quite ready to admit that j cheap land for the people is desirI able, but it is not possible to blame i the present landholders for any I speculative advances made. Provid- [ cd a man is using his land and reap- . iiig the full return for his labour it I does not matter to him whether his i land is valued at £2 or £2O per acre, j until he wants to sell it or pay rates I and taxes, and it decs not matter i one iota whether he be a large or I small landowner, when he disposes ! of his property he will demand its : full value —a value fixed, not by him- | self, but by its producing capacity 7 1 and the profit that is to be made out iof it. If a man turns his land to l good account and adds to the wealth I production cf the country, why i should he be singled out for special i taxation I The answer, according to Mr. Withy, is "because ho is a moni opolist.” Homy George himself has l said "that the fundamental principle | of human action —the law that is to I political economy what the law of j grav itaticn is to physics—is that men I seek to gratify their desires~vvith the I least exertion. Evidently this prin- | ciple must bring to an equality, I through the competition itinduces. i the reward gained by equal exertion j under s : milar circumstances.” Why I then endeavour to defy this law d I equalisation by confiscatory tax.a- -| tion of the man who owns land. I Land owners arc not the only people I who benefit from the prosperity cf the native industries. No man should be allowed to monopolise land vvhch is necessary for the public use* and benefit, but it is a fallacy to say a man is a monopolist because his operations extend a little beyond three acres and a cow.