PROGRESSIVE TAXATION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIII, Issue 13783, 23 June 1905, Page 3

PROGRESSIVE TAXATION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Whatever may b© the verdict upon the conflicting features of our land policy, I venture to predict that the volume of evidence in the possession of the Laud Commission will lead to the conclusion that the graduated land tax has not yet been so powerfully applied as to materially impede or diminish the aggregation of large estates. Just as there is a continual struggle between order and disorder in our social system, so will there continue to be constant efforts to blunt the edge of taxation, either land tax or income tax. Personally, I see no reason why a man should not own (say) a million acres, provided he so uses his princely territory as to give to labour, and the country generally, the same liberal advantages as if the land had been held by small farmers with average holdings. But, as Kipling says, “that is another story.” At present I desire to concentrate attention upon the advantages of a scientific and progressive system of land taxation, such as I foreshadowed in Canterbury in July, 1884. In 1903 the graduations were altered both in the groupings (in thousands) of the capital value and in the “ jumps ” in the land tax, the latter being altered from increments of &d to l-16d. The system I desire to submit for public criticism is based upon a unit of taxation of a farthing in the pound upon every £IO,OOO of capital value. The following skeleton schedule will, I hope, be understood:—

By the above system, where oven numbers have been given for convenience, the tax in farthings will be found by multiplying the capital value by itself, and .then dividing the product by ten thousand. Thus an estate worth £87,600 will pay a tax in tho pound of 87,500 divided by 10,000 farthings, or a total of 87,500 farthings s 8.75; equal to £797 10s 6Jd. . . To prove that I am not aiming at crushing the small farmer, I may state that under the above scheme a man with land worth itouUO would pay £2 12s Id, the same amount as under the schedule of 1891. But if a gentleman were 'to hold for speculative purposes land in this colony to the value or one million sterling, ho would, failing any concession for beneficial enterprise, pay over 10 per cent in progressive laud tax; while the fortunate (?) owner or land worth just £9,600,000 would pay 960.0000 farthings in the pound at the end or a year, so that tho Htate would automatically take possession, so to speak. But does the proposal spell ruin to the country? The country must decide. To conclude with examples of the more scientific and reasonable graduation under the above proposal: Valuation Ascending (in Thousands Tax on Extra Thousand.

I venture to put these suggestive figures before you at this time, as I hold that changes in taxation should only be made after the people have had ample opportunity of considering any now proposals, which should only take effect after a general election.—l am, et/v« J. H. NEWLYN,

Capital Yalxi*. Tax peril. Total Tax. & Par things. £ s. d. 1 . .0001 — 10 . .001 : 100 . .01. — 1,000 . .1 2 1 10,000 . 1. 10 8 4 50.030 . 5. 2S0 8 -4 100,000 10. 1041 13 4 150,000 . 15. 3343 15 0 200,000 . 20. 41G6 13 4 210,000 . 21. 4593 15 0

o£ Pounds). 1891. 1903. Suggested. £ 8. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. 30—81 17 li 3 1(3 18 9 6 7 1 40—11 23 8 9 14 1 3 8 8 9 50—51 23 3 4 17 3 9 10 10 5