THE LAND QUESTION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17702, 31 January 1918, Page 9

THE LAND QUESTION.

TO THE EDITOR

Sir, —One comes out to New Zealand to learn news or Home. I was greatly surprised to see in Saturday’s “Lyttelton Times” the statement in a letter signed “ Rusticus ’’—perhaps the spelling should be “Rusty Cuss,” as he is certainly very rusty in his facts—that “in actual practice in tho Old Country heavy land taxes have quite failed to secure the subdivision of existing large estates or prevent the formation of fresh ones.” Noyv, what are the actual facts? The New Zealand land taxes are ridiculously inadequate, only yielding some £1,250,000 a year, even with ’the war taxes added. As a matter of fact, since 1913 unimproved values in New Zealand have increased by £28,000,000, yvhich, at 5 per cent, means an increased rent-pro-ducing poYver of £1,400,000, so that the increase in rental values during the war pays back to the land monopolists cf New Zealand the whole of tho laud taxes each year together yvith a. nice little “ war bonus” of £150,000 a year. But, ridiculous as tho New Zealand land taxes are, the British land taxes are far more absurd in their inadequacy. The unimproved selling value of "the land of Neyv Zealand is £241,000,000, but the unimproved rental value of the land of the United Kingdom is from £300,000,000 to £400,000,000 a year. Yet, while the New Zealand land tax yields £1.2,‘>0.000 a year, tho British land taxes yield only some £600,000 a year, or less than half the New Zealand land taxes. It is true that there is supposed to be a land tax of 4s in the £ on rental values at Home. Perhaps that is where “Rusticus” got liis quaint idea iof “heavy land taxes” in the Old Country. Bub this tax is only a ghost of a tax. It is levied on the valuers of 1692 (in the reign of William HI. and Mary), even then under-assessed! Lloyd George’s land taxes of 1909-10 are" even more ghostly, so far as yield is concerned. They arc only levied to force revaluation of the land through the House of Lords, and the revaluation is not yet complete. They yield little or no revenue, though incidentally tho revaluation has far more than paid for itself by keying up the valuations of land for death duties. , Not one penny piece of war taxation has been levied on land values at Home, and only the other day Mr Bonnr Layv (a rank Tory), now Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Coalition Government —Heaven bless coalition 1!-—told the House of Commons that he “did not hope for any revenue from land values.” The 8.000,000 new voters enfranchised by too latest Reform Bill will have something to say to this at the next election, and lads who hare been fighting for their country yvith bullets in the trenches will fight for it with their ballots yvhen the war is over. —I am, etc., , OLD COUNTRY.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—l notice our old friend “Ilusticus” is again on the job with his one-man-one-holding idea, but although I have read his letter carefully, and also one published in your columns some time ago, 1 am no wiser than I was before as. to what exactly it is that he proposes. He opposes land values taxation generally and calls it “confiscation,” yet ho approved the graduated land tax, which, on the same basis of reasoning, is also confiscation. He considers the graduated' tax useful for bursting up big estates, and then states that heavy laud taxes have failed to secure tho subdivision of large estates in,England. Land values taxation, which, carried to its logical conclusion. would result in the nationalisation of rent, is denounced by superficial thinkers as “confiscation,” and yet none of tlioso who oppose this just and equitable' system are game! to try and meet the arguments of its supporters. On the contrary, they join in a “conspiracy of silence.”

We are told that tho 1 State has no right to deprive a man of what he has acquired in accordance, with the laws of the country. On this basis of reasoning Abraham Lincoln bad up right to set the niggers free. Holding these views, “ Rustams.” had he been on the spot, would have fought for the slave owners who had invested their hard earnings in slave's, in accordance w;ith the laws of the U.S.A. Slightly adapting “ Rusticus’s ” words, we get

the following:—“ If i ( as a planter, have bought a slave, representing a largo value, I am not going to sit clown quietly and see what I have honestly paid for filched from me by tJic State . . Jn tiic above I have substituted “planter” for “farmer” and “slave” for “land,” and I think the absurdity of the “vested interest ” theorv must be manifest. God’s laws are higher than man's, and when mundane statutes are found to be opposed to the higher law they raxvst bo annulled. Does anyone assert that the. slave has no right to demand lus freedom in spite of man-made laws? The parallel between chattel slavery and the system of private property in land is much closer than is generally supposed. The ownership of land carrier with it the ownershm of men and results in slavery of a different but more insidious kind—economic slavery. Titles to land, unless subject to rent payable to the State, are bad, just as titles to slaves are bad. It is a canon of mercantile law that a purchaser cannot acquire a better title to a tiling than the seller possessed ; hence all titles to land in fee simple are defective, because no vendor ever had or could have had a good title. Even the State can have no such title. At the best the State represents the present members of the community only. But the “ unborn millions ” have equal rights to land, and these rights obviously cannot be f=md bv a previous mmeration. So much 101 tho theory. When it comes to practice it will be found that the nationalisation of rent will, f-n far as 90 1101 cent of the whole people are concerned (and probably as to 80 per cent, or land owners themselves) untax moie than it taxes. Instead of “ confiscation ” they will experience benefit. As for, the minority of owners who would suffer loss, their claims are no better than the claims of the Southern planters in 1862. Which side arc wo on, North or South? ■ “Rusticus' asks hew any land tax will prevent small holdings being merged in largo ones. Well, it seems to me that a system which will force owners to make the best possible (appropriate) use of their holdings. and this the nationalisation or rent will assuredly do, will prohibit unduly large holdings, Surely this is obvious'. And it is also obvious that if a. man pays to the State tho lull annual value of his land (apart from improvements) no injury can result to the State, however large the holdings. Of course, what I have written applies to all land, rural as well as urban, and the nationalisation of rent will settle the question of laud monopoly both in town and country—settle it right and settle it for all time. Land owners in New Zealand are obtaining in ground rent at the present time about twelve millions sterling, which sum is simply tribute paid by- labour to landlords. Here is a tremendous ‘ confiscation ”of wages. “ Rusticus is opposed to confiscation. What is Ins remedy? Twelve millions paid yearly to a few individuals for wliat God gives freely to all. Truly, the Lord givetli and the landlord taketh away. , I trust your correspondent will give us full details of his one-man-one-hold-ing scheme. When, he does I feel sure I shall have something more to say about it. There is a movement mooted for the formation of a development league to promote settlement in Canterbury and to counteract the drift to the North. All I have to. sav about that is that any scheme which does, not embody adequate taxation of land values will be a farce, doomed to failure from the start. Any policy or proposal which does not hove for its aim tho placing of ground rent in the public Treasury is worse than useless. That is the fundamental remedy. All other so-called remedies are at best palliatives and a waste of time. Tliev merely, divert public attention from the rootevil—private property in laud.—l am, etc O. H. NIGHTINGALE.