LAND AND LABOUR.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXXII, Issue 15511, 11 January 1911, Page 5

LAND AND LABOUR.

A FISCAL DIALOGUE. LAND MONOPOLY A DANGER TO NEW ZEALAND. (This column, weekly sot aside l'or the discussion oi land and labour problems, is edited by Mr Arthur Withy, general secretary of the New Zealand Land Values League, with whom alone rests responsibility for the opinions expressed.) Small Farmer: You mean to say there’s land monopoly in New Zealand* - ' Land Reformer: Yes; there's land monopoly in New Zealand, or you small farmers, arid all other workers, too, would have a much hotter chance. It is. simply monstrous that in a country with little moro than a million people to some sixty-six million acres of land, there are men wanting land who can’t got laud. The Wellington “Post” of November 3rd. 1910, called attention in one breath to the fact that, according to the official returns, “ the number of applicants for farms containing an area sufficient to keep a man employed all the year round was far in excess of the number of sections offered ; and in the next breath it said that “ tho filling up of our empty spaces is an essential condition of the prosperity and even the safety of the country.” Here we have on the one hand “ empty spaces”—land wanting men—and on the other hand men wanting land: und it is stated that the filling up of these empty spaces is essential to tho safety and tho prosperity of tho country. Surely it should be clear to any thinking man that if these “ empty spaces” were only subjected to a substantial tax upon the full value they would have if put to the best use of which they are capable, the dog-in-the-manger landlords who are now holding them idle would either have to use these “ empty spaces' themselves Or give somebody else a chance to do so.

Small Farmer: Yes; I reckon that mould open up the land a bit. But I didn’t know there was much land monopoly here. T hare always been given to understand that the land in New Zealand is fairly equally divided. TOWN ARE AS SMALL. BUT VALUES 810. Land Reformer: That is a very big mistake.- though a very common one. The “ Farmers’ Union Advocate” tells you that “ the value of country lands is more than double that of town lands;” but it does not tell you that the area of the boroughs is only 190,000 acres, or one-3-50th part of the total area of the dominion. So that one-350th part of the land area of Now Zealand accounts for practically one-third the land values of New Zealand. From which it follows that one-third of the land values tax would have to be paid by the holders of only onc-330th of tho land area. The site of the old City Hull, Queen street. Auckland, for instance, has recently been valued at £'259,000, while land in Wellesley street, Auckland, sold the other day at prices ranging from £7O to £157 per foot of frontage. Compare such values with the values of agricultural land. Small Farmer: Yes; that’s all right, no doubt. But, still, “ the value of country lands is more than double that of town lands-.” THE £IOO FARMER AND THE LAND TAX. Land Reformer: So it is. But how is that value held ? That’s the point. The •• Farmers’ Union Advocate” tells yon (October 22nd. 1910) that “the £IOO farmer —at present exempt—would have to pay proportionately with the bin farmer; and •' Town and Country Life” declares (October 12th, 1910) that tho taxation of land values “ would c-oino with crushing effect upon the .small farmer. as well as upon his wealthier compeer.” But. before you get unduly scared, just look up the facts of tho case, as stated in Table No. 4 of Return B 17 A. 1907. Small Farmer: Ah. 1 should like to see that return. Lend Reformer: Well, here it is, and you can get a copy yourself for (id from tho Government Printer's, Wellington. But remember, in the first place, that while the small farmer is at present exempt from tho tax on land values, i he is not exempt from Customs taxes I and from local rates, under which ho | riifw pa vs out of all proportion to “ tho | big farmer” —“ his wealthier compeer;” I and remember, in the second place, that the rates and taxes now paid by the small farmer —but which we propose to abolish, obtaining all tax revenue, general and local, from land values only—average from £25 to £3O a year, accord- ) ing to tho size of his family. At the ! very utmost, the tax on land values j might amount to 5 per cent, on the i unimproved value of the land. So that, I at the very outside, the £IOO farmer, about whom tho “ Farmers' Union Advocate" is so anxious, might have to pay £5 a year in Innd tax, ns against the £25 to £3O a year ho a clear gain to him of £2O to £2-.i a year. Small Farmer : That looks all right, I must say. FOUR “ BIG FARMERS” PAY MORE THAN THOUSANDS OF SMALL FARMERS. Land Reformer: And tho better you understand ' it the better it. will look. You must bear in mind, of course, that those who hold the land values will have to pay in proportion to the land values they hold. Small Farmer: Yes; I understand | ' Land Reformer: Well, then, just look ! at this table No. 4. It seems to be an uninteresting mass of figures, but wait-

till we analyse it. You will see that at one end of tho scale, 7800 country j landholders, under £‘loo unimproved value, hold between them a total unimproved value of £367,282; and 5501 small farmers, between £IOO and £2OO unimproved value, hold a total unimproved value of £762,200 ; while, at the other end of ,tho scale, four “ big farmers,” ivitli an unimproved value of £200,000 and upwards, hold between them a country unimproved value o: £883,850, in addition to a town unimproved value of £132,179. It s the unimproved value that wo have to deal with, because we propose to take all the taxes off improvements —farm houses, farm buildings, and such.like —and tax instead tho value of the land nnnrt from all improvements. So that these lour “ big fanners” —these four “wealthier compeers”—would, under the taxation of land values (paying in proportion to the small farmer, paying the same rate per £ of land value as tho small farmer), have to pay considerably more than all the 5504 small farmers between £IOO and £2OO nut together, and a great deal morb than twice as much as tho 7800 small farmers under £IOO unimproved value. Small Farmer: My word! That’s an eye-opener! THE 99 “ BIG FARMERS” AND THE 22,890 SMALL FARMERS. Land Reformer: Table No. 4 abounds in such eye-openers, if you will only work them out. For instance, the 22,890 small farmers, under £SOO unimproved value, hold a total unimproved value of only £4,136,883, whereas the ninety-nine “ big farmers” over £50,000 unimproved value hold between them a total unimproved value of no less than £7,007,659. So that under tho taxation of land values these ninety-nine “ big farmers” would pay between them nearly 75 per cent, more than the whole of the 22,890 small farmers under £SOO unimproved value! Small Farmer : I-am afraid that my ninety-nine. “ wealthier compeers” would hardly like that. "Would they? Land Reformer: Not they! And, if you take Table No. 4 as a whole, you will find that the same sort of thing obtains throughout; the bigger tho land values, the smaller the number of landholders; the bigger the number of landholders, the smaller the land values they hold, both individually and iri the aggregate. Small Farmer: You astonish me! Tt seems impossible! (To be continued.)