STATE BAKERIES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVI, Issue 16807, 17 March 1915, Page 6

STATE BAKERIES.

The newspaper comments on the Prim© Minister’s forecast of State bakeries have been characterised by lack of enthusiasm where they have not been frankly adverse. Perhaps it would be too much to-ask tho Conservative or-

gans to swallow such a large piece o' unadulterated Socialism, even at Mr Massey’s -desire. Ono of the Government journals supposes that the Government has calculated the risks of failure, and mildly infers that while there is room on that score for apprehension it is reasonable t-o ask the public to admire Mr Massey for his courage. As to this, it will be time for applause when the loaves are baked and sold at a reduced price from the State delivery cart. One newspaper comically asserts that Mr Massey’s “ plain declaration ” proves that he >s in earnest in the intention to prevent exploitation 1 And yet it fears that State bakeries would not pay, and sympathises in advance with the poor taxpayer who would have to make good the deficiency. A third Conservative journal mentions the Prime Minister's

scheme without an expression of approval or disapproval, and then discourses on tho economic mistake of having a dozen bakers’ carts in. one street delivering as many loaves to as many houses. That argument is, of course, not without reason, and it could bo applied to numerous other industries with equal cogency. But we are afraid that what Mr Massey has threatened would merely aggravate the evil without providing the community with relief. He proposes to sel up business as a baker in each of sne four chief centres of population. Suppose tho Christchurch bakers should bo called upon to pay another pound or two for flour and were thus compelled to further increaso their charge for bread. Tho Prime Minister has said that the State would then come into competition with them. The Government would then have to show that it could produce and sell bread, w : th flour at nearly £2O a ton, .at a lower rate than traders of experience with established equipments and businesses could do. Wo think it very unlikelv that the Government would succeed. If it did, a number of Christchurch consumers might bo benefited and some traders injured, but the price of bread would not be affected at, say, Ashburton, or Timaru, or Nelson, or Oamaru. We cannot help supposing that Mr Massey knows this quite well, and that his proposed scheme is no remedy at all for the position that exists. * The truth is that the unfortunate gentleman has allowed the situation to develop beyond his control, and, so like a politician, is seeking the lino of least resistance. Probably ho is merely sparring for breath. Discussing the price of wheat three days ago, Mr Massey said: “This wild talk that has been indulged in about coercion and commandeering the farmers’ crops is no good.” The next day, shifting ilio discussion from wheat to. bread, he declared: “I understand tho possibilities of the statement mad© regarding Government bakeries. There is no question of n threat about it, but tho public must be protected.” And the Government that would not dream of coercing tho wheat grower, or the mib ler either, is prepared to coerce their unlucky victim tho baker by forcing him to lower his tariff or go out of business 1 It is clearly impossible m view of such conflicting statements, to get even an approximate idea of the Prime Minister’s views. But at least the head of a Government ought to recognise that the dearness of bread in New Zealand to-day is not duo to a shortage of bakeries, but to the fact that since the wor began the price of wheat has nearly doubled.

LAND VALUES AND TAXES

Enthusiastic advocates- of land taxation may be excused, perhaps, if they believe that no opportunity to push their cause ought to be missed. It is no surprise to find gentlemen like Mr George Fowlds nnd Mr P. J. O’Regan improving the shining nour, so to speak, now that everybody is discussing how the war tax should be imposed. As avowed exponents of the single tax —and very intelligent exponents, to confess the truth—they could hardly be expected to overlook land values in their share of exploration for something suitable to carry the annua! chargo that tho war will entail for some years to come. The enormous increases in the unimproved value of land in New Zealand afford very tempting material for the land reformer, who does not require to bo a disciple of Henry George to realise the justice of increased taxation. According to the latest Government figures tho increase in the last five years was nearly fiftysix million pounds—from £172,759,9-18 in 1909 to £228,493,376 in 1914. These are largo and impressive figures. They make it impossible to deny that tho bulk of the community, which is landless,' is continually and greatly contributing towards the enrichment of the landed minority. It is idle to belittle these facts and figures- as merely the basis of fads and theories. The other day a contemporary took up that line of argument, with results which may have been satisfying to itself, but which could not have convinced many of its readers. “ There are in Canterbury,” we Wero told, “ farms which fifteen years ago were" worth only half what they aro worth to-day (improvements being left out of account), but from which the income is only a little greater than in 1900. "What has the owner of such a farm put in his pocket in the shape of ‘ public earnings'?” To this we can reply with a concrete case. A farm of oo'u odd acres in Canterbury changed hands the other day at £ls an acre. Tho seller purchased it five years ago at £lO an acre. He has thus “put in his pocket” over £IOOO, and if this was not to a large * extent earned for him by the public wo should be glad to know how it came about, for it was certainly not “ earned ” by the lucky party himself. Wo aro fully convinced that tlio rising price and the rising value of rural land must bo traced Largely to the growth of population. which gives every landholder an increasing advantage over the landless people. Wo are sure that the land problem is the greatest that the Par-

liament of New Zealand will have to grapple with in tho future, because it is fundamental. The unequal, inequitable distribution of land underlies most of the social and economic disorders that none of us can fail to observe. But while we would welcome, not the single tax, hut a vigorous stiffening of the

graduated land'tax schedule, we do not think the present an opportune time for the activities of Mr Fowlds and his friends. It seems to us that the subject of war taxation should be considered apart from debatable political questions as far as possible. The necessity for an extraordinary tax —a war tax does not appeal to us as providing a proper occasion to press special arguments that would otherwise be perfectly legitimate. At the same time, it is no use telling people who mention the amazing growth of land that they are talking nonsense; nor is it

very convincing to call Mr I owlds a fool or a knave, or even a haberdasher,

as a correspondent has done. Tlio present scale of land taxation is ridiculously small in proportion to the wealth upon which it is levied.