THE SINGLE TAX.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 8885, 23 May 1892, Page 3

THE SINGLE TAX.

TO the EDITOR. Sir,—We have have what I might call another Kelly platitude in this morning's Hicrald. It is the same old story. There is nothing practical in it. We are not shown how the destruction of land values will make this earth an Elysium. We simply have a dry hashthe same old dry hash of inverted commas and italics. Surely the public are entitled to something more than this. We want to know how the taxing of the land, which is the basis of production of all wealth, will abolish poverty. We want to have some practical insight into everyday life under the new order of thincs. We want to know how it comes about, that if it is wrong and degrading for men to enter into a bargain with their fellowmen for the payment of rent, that it, is perfectly right and exhilarating for the State to insist on a rental from all ? We want to know how it is that if all landlordism is repugnant to success and happiness, a forced State landlordism is certain to lead on to prosperity and bliss. We want to know what benefit will be derived by the settler cultivating his own land if he is instantly called on to pay a rack rent to the worst landlord the world has ever known, or ever will know, the State— land lord who writes up " Vac victis " on his banner, and is cruel, heartless, and remorseless? We want to know how it is that if private landlordism is robbery and destruction, State landlordism can be benefaction and everlasting life ? We want to know how the destruction of anything of very great material value is certain to enrich the destroyers'? We want to know why the purchasing of land in perpetuity from the State and paying a fair price for the same is robbery, _ while the leasing of them for an indefinite term is the height of honesty ? These are a few of the things we poor unenlightened robbers wish to have explained to us ; but the only answer we get from onr dual-headed oracle are essentially Delphian. I have tried to follow Messrs. Kelly and Piatt in their letter of to-day's date as far as regards that portion of it referring to myself, and I must say I have so far not succeeded very well. They admit they go in for absolute free trade ; does this apply to land also ? They draw a fearful distinction between penal private taxation of land and penal public taxation of the same commodity. They presume that if a man chooses to lease a farm from his fellowman that he goes in for penal servitude. What does he go in for if he chooses to lease it from the Government? They talk about free trade and free land—when the whole founds-

tion of their business rests on the highest! rack-rent they can get. They presume that workmen would do better and be happier at 5s a-day than at 7s, and that farmers would be in Heaven if they only paid their rental to the State and had some naif-convict bully to nigger-drive them. They presume that all lands arc leased, and that no owner ever works his own farm. How can the " raw material " be free when they propose to raise all revenue from it ? The only way one can get raw material free is to steal it. Is this what they propose? They say " that so long as ' land value' counts between man and man so lonj; will labour be defrauded, industry anarchical, and justice impossible." Do they mean to infer that if" land value" counts between man and the State labour will be defrauded, industry anarchical, and justice impossible." Do they mean to infer that if " land value" counts between man and the State labour will not be defrauded, industry will be law-abiding and justice attainable! If so, I wish they would write an article on this subject, and thoroughly explain the whole matter. They infer that in the past in this country labour has been defrauded, industry has been anarchical (whatever that may mean), and justice impossible of attainment. Now, I challenge Messrs. _ Kelly and Piatt to state precisely any one instance in which labour has been defrauded, setting out in express and precise terms the full particulars of the case. I challenge them to state any instance in which industry has been anarchical, or a case where justice has been impossible. Ido not want the usual reckless sweeping charges and denunciations. I want a plain matter-of-fact statement reduced to actual living cases, and pounds, shillings, and pence. If this is not given, the public will know how to value such statements in future. The sentence about other land being equally _ tree " is apt to mislead ; but, as all land will be taxed to its full letting value, perhaps " equally free " may be said to apply without intentional misrepresentation. I must confess I cannot understand that part of it referring to the " Ease with which one could change his location." That a man can more easily dispose of a worthless article than a valuable one, I am not at all sure about. I would much prefer myself that my land should be weighted with value than be buoyant with nothingness, and I might even, put up with the iniquity part of it. Are our tenants to be allowed to flit about from place to place under the new order of things? We may be quite sure if there is ever any real prospect of the singletaxers' dream coming to pass, that land will have lost all value except its using value before that happy time arrives. In fact, I doubt if it has any other value now, so that the full annual letting value of all our lands will be required to produce our revenue. Would Messrs. Kelly and Piatt kindly become matter of fact and submit their proposals as to the general form of their proposed land tenure, stating how they propose to retail the whether by auction, tender, or first application, also what special covenants, if any, they intend to have inserted in their leases or other form of tenure; also, whether on the expiry of the term any right of renewal or compensation would be granted. And they might also state exactly what present taxes they propose to do away with. If we had this data to work on, most country settlers and city artisans could work out the probable effect of these new proposals themselves. At present we are told arsenic is a very bad poison in the hands of private individuals, but that it can be administered by the State in very large doses to all and sundry, with not only perfect safety, but also an absolute certainty of beneficial results. I myself doubt it exceedingly, and before the public are allowed or compelled to partake of it, I think they ought to be supplied with something further than the mere bald assertions of Messrs. Kelly and Piatt.—l am, etc., Iconoclast. ,