THE MANGERE FARMERS AND THE SINGLE TAX.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXI, Issue 9489, 19 April 1894, Page 3

THE MANGERE FARMERS AND THE SINGLE TAX.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—The letter in to-day's Herald by Messrs. Kelly and Batty, under the above heading, is discursive, disconnected, and purely theoretical. The ideas are stated in such a manner that it is difficult to realise what the practical issue of them would be. In fact, all the prophecies of single taxers lack not only the proof, but even the probability, that on the whole any benefit to society would result, were their scheme brought into operation. There is nothing more certain than that it would cause great and undeserved distress. I do not consider their letter any reply to mine, especially as I asked for clear and definite answers to two or three questions, which they have utterly ignored. I asked it they -would oblige by stating clearly and distinctly how they are going to get their single tax when they have levied it ? and whether it would not result (practically) in a social revolution, and open rebellion against the law such as I described; because of the unjust demand by the State, made upon honest people, to pay twice over, for what they had legally bought and paid, and had acquired a title to under the laws of that State, Will they please answer these questions ? In these days, it should be considered verv honourable and quite sufficient to pay for a thing once. Will they also answer my question as to " Why a man should retain the whole of the unearned increment from compound interest on capital (say bank shares) any more than a man who invests the same amount in land? Probably, in many instances, the very money that the land was sold for, has oeen reinvested by the seller in the purchase of shares, and the holder of these shares has done less for society than the man who bought the land. Yet, the shareholder may receive a gradually increasing interest, until as much as 15 per cent, per annum is realised on his bank shares, and the capitalised value of which has increased threefold. • -. Yet the single taxers would let him keep it all, while the poor landowner, in the meantime, finds he has made a bad spec in the purchase of his land; and although it may suffer a decrement in value of 50 per cent., the single taxer would take the remaining 50 per cent. .: •-, ; What has the shareholder done more than the landowner for society, and where is the justice? I know land at .Newmarket in which I am interested as trustee, that did; not realise lately at public auction, more than half what was paid for it ten years ago. Why should such a one as the Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, the Birmingham millionaire, who has made his money from the monopoly of a purchased patent, in \\ the carpenter's common screw-nail; be allowed ;to retain it all untaxed, although it has been ;; screwed out of the people ; while the poor tradesmen who, after struggling hard half a life time, has obtained the dream of bis life, " a bit of

freehold land," must have the whole value taxed out of him? These are practical questions, and if your correspondents will descend into the arena of practical i issues :• and answer them fairly, I think it will be easily seen that the single tax is utterly unjust, and very dangerous in consequence, and that it is entirely impotent to cope with, and affect the inequalities of life, which are the cause of the present world-wide social unrest. It would not even touch the fringe of it, but would make it worse by increasing competition. Let me. ask how, except by public competition (just as it is now) could the value of land be ascertained, and the land acquired; and in what respect, therefore, would the occupier of it gain any advantage, and how could he be sure of his tenure, if someone else would pay a higher price? There would be. continual change and uncertainty, and every discouragement to make improvements.

Take the case of a man who has spent, say, a couple of thousand pounds in building a house and in making other improvements on his land, because he thought it was his own, and there is a beautiful site on it for this purpose ;but after the single tax is in operation, a rich man comes along and offers a yearly rental for the land, that the owner of the property cannot afford to pay. This offer is certainly its value if no one will give more ; so the man who had spent his money and time in planning and beautifying the place, and who had hoped to end his days there, must clear out, as he is now the owner inname only; his home is usurped by the rich man, who can afford to pay a higher rent than he can for the land. A city man who had built up a business on his own freehold would be liable to be moved on in the same way, and there would be endless litigation as to what was the value of the improvements— and the business, that would be acquired with the land. If the land is not to be assessed at its highest public competition value, then what other value would single-taxers put upon it to as to get it all, as they declare they must have the whole of it? They must have some strange ideas of justice ! Your correspondents say that neither Mr. Taylor nor Mr. Massey seem to be able to distinguish between "land value" and the wealth which is the product of labour. I can distinguish that they are convertible terms, and that a man can and often does buy laud with the wealth his labour has produced, and therefore in this form as in all others the fruits of his labour should be inviolable, which is one of the chief doctrines of the single-taxers. How then can they desire to lay their clutches upon it? I know two men who work on the roads at 4s a-day, and each of them have managed to acquire a bit of freehold on which they live— your correspondents justify the robbing of these men and their class of the fruits of their labour. It is not correefc that an average landowner would reap a corresponding advantage by the saving in indirect taxation besides that, all the unnecessary Customs duties could be sooner abolished by a very progressive income tax without the single tax. To abolish reasonable protection to our industries, as single-taxers advocate, would be very disastrous and unwise, and bring our artisans down to the level of coolie labourers. I did not say that the townspeople would escape the single-tax, but, on the contrary, showed that they would have to pay it or part with some of their goods, and I never said that laud would be taxed that was worth nothing. I think that will beat even the single taxers. As to my showing that all forms of wealth reaped the same advantage as land, from increase of population and public expenditure, I shall endeavour to show this when they show me that all wealth is increased by any other cause. How could either Bessemer Steel or Holloway's Pills have made their proprietors immensely wealthy unless the people had been there to make them and use them and spend their money on them Your correspondents say that the legislation I propose "may ease the lot of those who are in steady employment, but can do nothing for the unemployed.' How so, when I advocated that all should share of what employment there is as equally as possible; and therefore of the wages also? They did not say what the single-tax would do lor the poor discharged compositors I referred to. I suppose they would send them on the land without capital, and demand from them a State-levied competition rent, in the shape of the single-tax.—l am, etc., J. E. Taylor. Maugere, April 9th, 1894. [The publication of the above letter has been unavoidably delayed, but the force of the writer's arguments is not affected by time. —Editor.]