THE SINGLE TAX.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16550, 14 May 1914, Page 3

THE SINGLE TAX.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—l would like to say a word in reference) to tho loiter from Mr Morgan Williams appearing in your issue of Mhv 8. Tf f may say so without any desire to jrivft offence", it appears to mo that Mr "Williams does not fully appreciate tho position of either the Social, democrats or the single taxers. Mr Williams thinks that the single taxers would allow the transport, brewing, banking and other monopolies to escape taxation, while tho entire burden was placed on tho back of the ".struggling cocky." In this country, anyhow, that is not the case. I think lam correct in saying that the policy of the New Zealand Land Values League provides for tho socialisation of monopolies. Ihe single taxcrs wore affiliated to the United Labour Party formed by Professor Mills and a portion of tho objective of that party read as Iollows: '"To uso tho fruits of every partial victory. . . . until . • • tne means of production, distribution and exchange (in so far as they constitute in private hands. instruments of oppression and exploitation) shall bo socially owned—operated without profit for" tho common good of all. The platform of tho party also provided for tho "establishment of State ferry service, State colliers, State lactones, works, services and a State bank,'' and it is significant that the objective, of tho party was seconded at tho United Labour Party conferenco by Mr Arthur Withy. Another plank in tho platform was " a graduated income tax based on scientific .principles with a. super-tax on unearned incomes." iSvcn Henry George, if I read him aright, was iiot opposed to the social ownership of such public utilities as gas, water, trams, etc. (Frea Trade and Protection, chap. 28)'. On the other hand, plank 0 of the Social Democrat platform reads av follows, ''lncreased taxation of unimproved land values both in town and country, etc." In the " Struggle for Existence," page 3(37, Professor Mills says, " It is difficult to over-estimate, the value of this agitation of tho late Henry George—his followers in calling attention to this fact, namely, that there is no pretence whatever that the sums paid in rent for land values exclusive of improvements represent any service'whatever from the landlords to spcicty, but are simply the appropriation by the landlords of values which have been created by the whole body of the community, for it is tho community which most of all determines which location is the most and which the least desirable. Tho single taxers as well as the Socialists have compelled the economists to face this feature of the wage system." It is quite obvious that Mr Williams has overlooked the fact that the Social Democrats arc with the single taxers in a desire to secure for the community all community-created land values. There arc other important points in Mr Williams's letter that ought to be replied to but space limitations forbid.—l am, etc..

,; T>. G. SULLIVAN. TO THE EDITOR. . Sir,—Mr Miles , Verrnll hopelessly flounders about in the sea of effects of the present unjust economic system instead of going to the root of tho question. It a man has a right to lite it iollows that lie has a right to the use of the earth without paying toll to a pri•vate individual who calls himself the "owner" of it. The earth is a free gift from God to "fill the children oi men.",. There can, therefore, from the moral standpoint, be no such thing as private property in land. Nor i... .there, from .the legal standpoint, since in the theory, of. the law all ' laud, is vested in the Crown on, behalf of the whole people. All that is ..necessary is private possession, not private ownership, in order to secure to a man tho fruits of his labour. I'hc interests of tho whole nation in the land can only bo . safeguarded by diverting ground rents into the public treasury for the benefit of all. No single taxer proposes to suddenly spring this reform on to the country but to bring it about gradually, which is tho common-sense way of doing it. Single taxers believe in evolution not revolution. The gradual application of the single tax will avert revolution... Single taxers aim at-the root cause of economic injustice. They have no. time for tinkering with the effects of it. Public wrongs, however hoary and respected by those who fatten oh them, must be righted, and we are not going to accept tho dictum of the monopolists that this is impossible because they have invested money in those wrongs. Are the people to be robbed and enslaved forever for tho benefit of plunderers? If not, then how docs Mr Verrnll, since he rejects the single tax- propose to remedy the matter?. '■.'

Tf "protection" is a good thing— Mr Verrall thinks it is—why not have more of it so as to (1) still further increase tho cost of living, and (2) save those patriotic landowners who do happeh to pay something towards the revenue by way of land tax, from the awful necessity of paying more, and also save those landowners who contribute nothing in land taxation from paying anything under that head ? But if " protection '» is a bad thing—and an ever-increasing number of people are being convinced that it is—then get rid of it step by step as you increase taxation on land values. To tax goods before we will accept them is, madness. If I took a shipload of merchandise to a man on an island with a view to exchanging my commodities for his and ho said to me, " Well, skipper, if I take your goods I must tax them to protect myself by _ making them dear," would! not be justified in putting him in irons? The truth is that " protection " is a rank swindle.—l am, etc., FREE LAND, FREE TRADE.