THE HALSWELL SEAT.

Lyttelton Times, Volume LXXIV, Issue 9268, 24 November 1890, Page 3

THE HALSWELL SEAT.

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, —Mr Charles Lewis has made a discovery, and given elaborate figures to show that the farmer would have to pay more relative taxation under a Land and Income tax, which exempts improvements, than under the present Property tax, which taxes, improvements; and Mr Parker’s statement showing the contrary has been very unfairly represented, or misrepresented. Mr Lewis’ discovery is arrived at by contrasting the two—not by using the same basis of Id in the £ for each calculation, but by calculating the Property tax at Id in the £, and the Land tax at 2id iu the £ ( i.c ., the basis varying only 150 per cent!) which is as misleading as Sir H. Atkinson’s calculation, so ably exposed by Mr Reeves at St Luke’s, on the basis of the Income tax. Mr Lewis then discreetly ignores the fact that under the Property tax at Id in the £ he himself, at his own figures, is paying .£3l 10s annually, or 2s 4d per acre, or Ts Sd in the .£1 income—whichever way he wishes to put it—but that under the Land and Income tax he would only pay income, &c., Ac.

I believe most people who heard Mr Parker understood him to say, in speaking of £l per cent on land values (which is 2§d in the £) that he used such basis merely as an example to Illustrate the relative weight of such tax as bearing on the farmer and on the large estate owner, the farmer, as he stated, paying only the annual tax of £2 10s on a fifty-acre farm of £5 per acre unimproved value, whereas on the large estate of one hundred thousand acres at same value, the amount would be a very appreciable tax. But his words have been twisted to bear the intention of contrasting two systems of incidence of taxation, on different bases of calculation, which is absurd.

If a tax of £1 per cent on land (country and city) values were ever imposed—which would produce a revenue (together with Income tax on same basis as present Property tax) of nearly ,£1,000,000 on a value of £80,000,000 for unimproved lands, which I believe to be the true valuation, whereas we only require to raise at present £350,000 —then, no doubt, the Customs duties on some of the necessaries of life could be taken off pro rata; and I agree with Mr Parker that it would be a very good thing, considering that now the Customs duties amount to 72 per cent of taxation against 27 in England, and that these are paid principally by the farmers and working classes, but Mr Parker said nothing about taking off all the Customs duties. Lastly, I can hardly think that Mr Lewis is ingenuous in believing himself liable to the Income tax on the improvements of his farm, on which he would be paying a Land tax. I consider, therefore, that Mr Parker’s statements have been very unfairly represented. The farmer is of all classes (even a farmer owning such valuable land as Mr Lewis’) the one most benefited by a Land and Income tax. It is only the monopolist and large estate owner, who cannot wosk his estate to its productive value, who need fear it. Iu his own interest it is tbe honA fide farmer who should be its greatest apostle.—l am, Ac., HALSWBLL ELECTOR.