THE SINGLE TAX.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIV, Issue 16137, 14 January 1913, Page 3

THE SINGLE TAX.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —I did not expect Mr Verrall would make much hand of the ‘‘Merry Widow ” hat question, but I was hardly prepared for anything so weak as his letter published on January 7. I attacked the question from three different standpoints, showing clearly the essential difference between bat values and land valVre3, but Mr Verrall does not even attempt to criticise my reasoning. Ho says that my statement that the importer is a producer is beyond him, but your readers will agree that the man who carries the firewood to the house i 3 as much a producer as he who chops it up, and also that the case of this man is on all fours with that of the hat importer. It is easy to make large profits for the importer “on paper,” but my experience in a business which imports many thousands of pounds worth per annum is that it is difficult to make more than reasonable interest on the capital outlay, and it is also easy to lose money at the game. Mr Verrall’s profits would impress one more if he were to import a million hats and become a millionaire. Wliat is stopping him? People who argue that there is a‘ community-created value in hats have a large contract on hand. The hats, according to Mr Verrall. cost the importer £l. If ho were to sell them for £1 Mr Verrall would not say there was any community-created value in them, nor if he sold them for 225. 6d or 255. Where does the communitycreated value commence? At 30s? Jf so, why? Mr Verrall on this point is like a ship in a heavy sea with the fires out and the rudder gone—adrift on a sea of sophistry. lam asked why the importer should not be taxed. The reply is, he is. As a useful member of the community he contributes his share to the oommunity-creatod valuo of land, and when these are taken by the State he is therefore taxed. In like manner the banker is taxed, so i 3 the farmer and all the rest. It is true the importer is not taxed on anything he individually produces, but neither is the farmer nor the banker. So long as the community-created value of land is sufficient to defray the cost of government why tax anyone on hia individual earnings? The unimproved value of £1930 is a community-created value, and not the production of the settler individually. Mr Verrall makes the astounding statement that when I say a man “ possesses ” a property I thereby admit that he rightfully owns it! Now, if Mr Verrall were right in this contention it would still be a “ quibble,” because anyone reading the full context of what I wrote could not be under the least misapprehension as to my moaning. But Mr Verrall is, as usual, wrong. Besides meaning “to own” the word “possess” means “to bold,” “to occupy,” and it is obvious that a man may hold or occupy what does not belong to him. Mr Verrall should go down to Lyttelton gaol, where he will find quite a number of people who are there because they were caught in tho “possession” of things which they did not “ own.” Surely Mr Verrall is hard put- to it when he tries such a shuffle! Nor is Mr Verrall any happier when he talks about the settler. He attempts no “ argument ” hi this connection, but contents himself with a “wail” over a man who is supposed to have lost £5 but didn’t.

In my letter, from which the'figures are taken, it was distinctly stated that there_ was no mortgage on the property, and in my last letter I reminded your correspondent that the- figures given were not actual. Still Mr Yerrall is not to be doile out of his “ wail.” Now, if he must let his tears flow, why not eliminate tho mortgage and wail ovor the actual facts? Mr Verrali’s ethics seem to be that you must not take anything from- a man,, no matter how lie has become possessed of it, if to do so would leave him with nothing. On this principle, if a man “ gets away” with a bag of gold and it is sought to compel him to mako restitution, Mr Verrall says: “No—the man has nothing else, therefore you cannot take the money from him I” The question whether it rightfully belongs to him or not does not concern Mr Yerrall, or why does he not, attempt to show that the settler rightfully owns the £1930. I say ho has not created it; Mr Verrali says—nothing. I say the State has created it; Mr Verrali says—nothing. Let him dry his tears and give us an “ argument ” on this point. But my proposals are not going to ruin this settler, nor even take from the family more in taxes than ' what they will give back in reduced taxation. This I showed in the letter from which Mr Verrali has obtained his figures, and he seems unable to contest my facts. “ Give the single-taxers rope and they will hang themselves.” I differ. Give them rope enough and they promptly “string up” the land monopolists. No one reading the recent correspondence in your columns can honestly come to any other conclusion.—l am, etc., °. H. NIGHTINGALE. January 9.