THE LAND BILL.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXIX, Issue 8987, 19 September 1892, Page 3

THE LAND BILL.

to THE editor. Sir, —The great importance of the subject will I trust be my excuse for again troubling you with a few remarks. All that is contended for is, that the perpetual leaseholder should be placed on the same footing, in all respects as regards interest or rent and taxation, as the person who purchases the freehold, and that he should in time be able to become a free man by purchasing the freehold, paying in the meantime interest or rent on the purchase money. Granted that Sir George Grey's idea that the land tax should be universal, and that there should be no exemption, is correct, the tax would operate in this way :—A purchases 500 acres of land at say £1 per acre, equal at five per cent, to an annual rental of £25, or Is per acre. In 20 years or less this land is worth say £10 per acre, equal to £5000. This sum includes the unearned increment, and assessing the land at its then value, the tax upon it would be, according as the rate was Id, 2d, or 3d per £, £20 16s Bd, £41 13s 4d, or £62 10s per annum. B takes- up 500 acres on perpetual lease, valued at £1 per acre, and paying a trifle less than one shilling per acre rent. The Government assessor, appointed by the Minister of the day or elected by the ratepayers, coming along 20 years hence and acting according to the plain provisions of the law, proceeds under ciause 4 of Schedule A to assess B in the same manner as if he were a freeholder. He finds the land (unimproved value) to be worth £10 per acre, and as the State cannot be taxed, he assesses B at the full value of £5000, only making an allowance for the capital value of the rent which he has to pay. Now this is fair, and both parties, A and B, are alike taxed with the unearned increment. But if, in addition to this taxation, you impose an additional rent on B, then you place on him an extra burden, and one which A is not required to bear, and to equalise the matter A should be made to pay at the same time, say in 20 years, an additional price for his freehold. I his is the necessary corollary to the contention that B should pay an inrental on a new valuation. I would say again and with renewed emphasis,— Crush Out That Land Bill.