MR. VAILE AND THE SINGLE TAX.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVI, Issue 11059, 10 May 1899, Page 7

MR. VAILE AND THE SINGLE TAX.

TO THE EDITOR. I Shrft; 7* A l '' oßlo make il "PP« a«t 1 laluod land m Queen-street at £10 nor fool, he holdn of an infinitesimal morsel ol land ' Lie ?""! ,eet W0,,U1 ,W m ™ ■»&■ the smgletax than any of ">«" "small settlers, ' or whose welfare Messrs. Taylor and Vale aro so anxious. In the first place, I must protest against Mr. Yaile's assertions 1, 2! ~,.• , ,'"*■ tho , f'S 1 " lax will take no hone t K al> n fr °- m , l,hn - " l,e is "™* me, lj, 10 sl^ a tax will benefit him, ,— -V 'n ldlnß ll 0nl >' as " »MM of I pro , la ln( j he wring, or others, he will probably find it desirable to dispose of it or to put it to its best use. Secondly, compare Alt. Vados1 idea of the freehold with the ngle tax idea, lake America as an in stance A tew years ago most of the farmers held thoir own freehold: to-day they am practically all mortgaged up to the bill, and it is truly said that the farmer farms tho arm and the capitalist farms the farmer. Under single tax conditions this could not ravo occurred, because each farmei ,vould truly havo bis freehold, and the ringlo tax would have protected him from tho,moitga C and land speculator, and tho farmer's chiliron could then get land without paying through the nose to tho land-grabbers. As for the Government wringing the highest ground ront from tho people, the idea is absurd when we consider that under present conditions the landlords wring as much ground rent from the people as possible, from which Mere, is no appeal, whereas under single lax conditions tho public at largo lorms a normanont vigilance committee to see that injustice is done to nobody. Thirdly, if a tax on land values is gradually substituted fo. tin present iniquitous system, the benefit -vlirh will accrue to the whole community will more than compensate the mortgagees ff.r tho loss of the- power to appropriate the earnings of their fellow men. So much for Mr. Yaile's three assertions. I will now take his four questions. The first three resolvo themselves into one, viz., who is to discharge the duties attaching to property in the event of Iho death or abandonment of the holder? The heirs, idmiiiistrators, or assigns would have to do ho best they could, as they do now in the cafe of property held iroin tiie Oily Council or Harbour Hoard; the fact of the ground rent going tc the State would affect the one no more than the other. With regard to question four, tho interest oi the people as shareholders in insurance companies and friendly societies, banks and (rust funds, is infinitely less than their interest as wage-earners and the. increase of wages which would come to them by our reform would represent interest on a larger capital than they at present possess. Mi. Yaile tells us that the D.S.O. and Central Hotel block 25 years iiro was not worth £1200, and that tho land alone is now worth £50,000 (en passant, I am glad to note that Mr. Yailo has at last succeeded in separating the site value from improvements). Now, let me ask Mr, Yaile a few questions. 1. Is not the £30,000 value ho mentions duo to tho presence of the public and the expenditure of publio money extorted from the people by Customs taxation? 2. Did the ownei do any more to create that value than any other man in tho town? 3. Is it robbery for the public to tako a value they themselves create? I shudder to think what effect Mr. Yaile's admission of the site value of the D.S.O. and Central Hotel block will havo on Mr. .1. E. Taylor. Why. tho whole of the Mangers district, according to last valuation (1117 a, 1893). shows an unimproved value of £79.283, and three such blocks as the D.N.C. and Central Hotel would represent a total value | of £90 000. and would tlierciore pay more under the single lax than the whole of Mangore. Oh! ye gods and little fishes! How anxious some people are about Iho "small settlers!"—! am, etc., F. M. Kino, , Hon, See. National Single Tax League.