COUNTRY ROADS ACT AMENDMENT BILL. To the Editor of the 'Nelson Examiner.'

Nelson Examiner and New Zealand Chronicle, Volume XVI, Issue 7, 22 April 1857, Page 2

COUNTRY ROADS ACT AMENDMENT BILL. To the Editor of the 'Nelson Examiner.'

Sir—l now beg to offer a few remarks upon the Country Roads Act Amendment Bill—the object of which is to exclude from assessment all buildings and improvements upon the land subject to the tax. This was the favourite idea of Mr. Saunders and his party, during the session of the Provincial Council in which the act was passed, but it did not find acceptance with the majority. . Adam Smith embodied in four maxims or principles all the qualities desirable, economically speaking, in a system of taxation, and the first of these is as follows: — " The subjects of every state ought to contribute to the support of the Government as nearly as possible in proportion to their res pective abilities, that is, in proportion to th<. revenue which they respectively enjoy undo thejprotection of the State. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation."

Equality of taxation is defined, by Political Economists, to be equality of sacrifice. It mean^ " apportioning the contribution of each person towards the expenses of government, so that he shall feel neither more nor less inconvenience from his share of the payment, than every other person experiences from his." Now let us inquire whether the taxation proposed under the amended bill can be considered "equal" within the meaning of the above quoted maxim and definitions. I will endeavour to show, by illustration, that it cannot. Mr. Saunders is owner of certain acres of land in Waimea Sduth, which he has probably inclosed and cultivated. But upon part of this land he has built a flour-mill, which is in full work and yields a large yearly revenue. The cultivation of the land is not, I imagine, the primary object with Mr. Saunders. I take it that the business of his mill is his principal business. Now, assuming the proposed bill to pass, let us see the relative positions in which Mr. SaunderS and his neighbours would be placed under its provisions. In assessing Mr. Saunders's land the assessors are to exclude from their consideration the mill and all other improvements. They are to suppose it a piece of uncultivated ground, possessing a certain degree of fertility surrounded by cultivated lands, and accessible by good roads, bearing, from these circumstances, a value to sell which waste land, merely as waste land, does not intrinsically possess. Extraneous circumstances, therefore, form the main element of value which are to be considered by the assessors. But Mr. Saundera has neighbours who are farmers and not millers. Applying the same rule to the valuation of their lands, must not the assessors consider the vicinity of Mr. Saunders's mill as an additional element of value ? This is one of the ordinary elements in ascertaining the value of landed property, and would most fairly and legitimately be applied in assessing lands in the vicinity of Mr. Saunders's mill. His neighbours, therefore, would be taxed on account of his mill, whilst he himself would escape! Would this be equality? The cry of Mr. Saunders, and those who are guided by him, is, that to assess buildings and improvements is a "tax upon industry." No greater fallacy was ever propounded. If Mr. Saunders were to be taxed at a higher per centage than his poorer neighbours, merely because he had accumulated a large amount of capital, which he afterwards invested in buildings, &c, then hemight indeed say that industry was taxed ; then he might fairly complain that industry and economy were discouraged : but whilst his capital is no more taxed than the capital of others, why should he complain? Let Mr. Saunders's neighbours consider for one moment the position of the matter. Who causes the roads to be most used in the vicinity of Mr. Saunders's mill? — Mr. Saunders, of course. Who derives the greatest advantage from the roads to his mill ? — Mr. Saunders, of course. Did he build the mill to accommodate his neighbours ? — I guess not ; or why were they so anxious for an opposition mill ? Then why should his mill escape its legitimate share of taxation 1 Why should not he contribute in proportion to his means — means greatly augmented and benefited by the roads which the tax is to keep in repair 1 A house tax has been advocated by political economists as a fair and unobjectionable tax, on the ground that no part of a person's expenditure is a better criterion of his means. The same may be said of other buildings — those employed in trade or manufacture. The man' of large capital has extensive buildings. They, at all events, generally bear a near proportioa to his capital : they ought, therefore, to form an element in taxation. To exclude them would be to violate the principle laid down by Adam Smith, and recognised by every political economist since his day, that f 'the subjects of every state ought to contribute to the support of the government in proportion to their abilities." I remain, Sir, •Your obedient servant, W. T. Locke Travers. Nelson, April 20, 1857.