PROBLEMS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 10479, 26 June 1897, Page 3

PROBLEMS.

TO THE EDITOR. SIR,—For the sake ot brevity I will deal only with the three last paragraphs of Mr. Ewinston's letter. ; • ' ■ • ■ . j 1. Mr. Ewington denies my assertion that an unconditional freehold is a perpetual taxing charter on future labour, became, the

£13,000,000 paid by the landowners to the State would, if lent, have amounted to about £68,000,000 by this time! Will Mr. Ewington tell,us who derived the most permanent benefit from the expenditure of the money paid to the State for the land!-was it the landowners or the non-landowning public ? Then with regard to the millions borrowed for public works—did this increase the rate of interest, or wages! Or did it not mainly go to increase land values, which means in. creased tribute from the land user? Mr. Ewington assumes that the burden of compound interest could go on accumulating tor ever! But we know that this is a fallacy, because bankruptcy would be the inevitable result. Was the " using value" of the land nothing during those 30 or 40 years.! And if Mr. Ewington demands interest, we say that it was paid by the using value going to the owner during that time. If the original investment was bringing in interest, how can Mr. Ewington claim that the interest is still unpaid! In England, where the rate of interest is lowest, the highest price of land is 30 years purchase ; surely here where interest is so much higher, the original land buyers muse have had a great deal more tlmu the purchase money returned loug aao. 2. Mr.. Ewington denies that under the single tax, the worker would receive all that he earns, and tries to support this by in' stancine a worker who has bought an allotment for £100, the selling value of which would disappear under the single tax; but since the single-tax means the abolition of allotherforms of taxation which now take from the worker's family from £15 to £25 per annum, we may safely leave the worker to decide on the relative advantages of the two systems. The money he borrows to build a house gives him a house to live in. and is only a fair exchange of services, but the money he pays for land only gives him " permission" to build a house—it represents no equivalent service from the other party, and is therefore " tribute-money" only. 3. With regard to land taxation being a violation of any written contract, I deny it altogether. There is no such contract expressed or implied, and the only objection that can be made to taxing laud values is that the tax cannot be " passed on " to the worker. We think nothing of taxing the worker's food and clothing up to 25 per cent., but a tax of 5 per cent, on the landowner's privilege is called confiscation. Does this seem reasonable!—l am, etc., Adam Kelly, Park Road, 24th June, 1897.