LAND REFORM.

Maoriland Worker, Volume 12, Issue 293, 11 October 1922, Page 10

LAND REFORM.

!ftyh« Editor, Sir, — j &OW strange and unfortunate a thing 'J* j>B that we near so little of a land BoHoy either In The Worker or in. any nhex* Socialist literature. All parties Vttt agreed on the need for this reform jtnd there is not muck difference as jto the steps to be taken. Yet, instead m combining on this one point of t*reement, they are all at sixes and •Srens over points of disagreement, jke mere mention of which acts to ftem. as does a red rag to a bull. If only we would unite on this land JttiestiGn and get it pushed through Parliament, with the help of a genjlal strike, if necessary, we should rave solved most of the riddles that Puzzle social reformers. So it was pleasant to see the Worker give so jprominent a place to M. J. Savage, tt.P.'s, land policy. Let us hope that JBTe"shall Slave it kept before us, for X is such a practical thing - , atsd would flfend no section of reform.

(But there is one point in Mr. Savsge's excellent paper which needs al--fjpration. He would prevent the sale M land except to the State. This would be most unpopular, and would iutetuvte much public sympathy from .Jμ. Jbid it would be quite unnecesip'y as well as -undesirable. For Wltite-ver would the State do with the ftjld? We should soon have flagrant iyils among an army of corrupt offi-

fWHereas if, instead, a heavy tax #£i*e put upon the unimproved value ffl pil land, so as to take away its I&iu6 to all but tnose who would use X to profit, we might allow the freeK&ld as at present, and let anyone who peuld buy what be wanted, subject to ffce tax. So the State would have no jyorry or expense, and could collect the tax through the post offices. A Socialistic State would." have plenty jo do without fiddling- about with an jEttnunierable ihost of tenants.

/Henry George, a 'generation ago, the need of this tax, and the Fabian Society continues to proclaim fite truth; but it is almost forgotten, l&d direct taxes are unpopular, the subiic preferring to pay four times its much by daily instalments, in the r.ge prices of all commodities. Yet would do a farmer a world of good to have-to pay a regular yearly tax et» his land: he would then be more Inclined to work it to profit and to exjpect it to keep him, instead of going Out to work to keep it going, as is too tten the case to-day. He could, of urse, afford to pay the tax, for he Would be relieved of much more than %a amount In the lessening of Customs, etc. Only the capitalist landlord would feel the pinch, and he is Jfte man we want'to get at. The small farmer would be with us to the last tnan, if only it were explained to t&em, which it is for us to do. —I am, ■ Jβ. S. DUKES.