RATING ON UNIMPROVED VALUE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11619, 5 April 1901, Page 3

RATING ON UNIMPROVED VALUE.

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir,—Mr. Vaile, in a recent letter on rating on unimproved Values, states that nearly all, if not all,, of our largest buildings would pay much less under the new system than they do now, and also fathers on to Mr. Fowlds, and accepts a statement : - that properties of £300 and under would also pay less This latter statement I have no hesitation in saying Mr. Fowlds never used in the way Mr. Vaile has used it, for it is only part of the truth, and therefore very ' misleading, r If the property consists, of land only, and is valued at £300, it would, under the new system, pay about double it does now;; if it consists of Viand' £150 and improvements £150, it will pay about' the same .as now; but if the land is 'only ; -worth,. say, £75, and the improvements £225,-then the rates would be much less than, at present. But this is by the way. Mr. Vaile asks where the advocates of the new rating expect the shortage on the great, and 'small. properties to come from, and the extra £1000 i which would be collectable in > the North and East Wards. It certainly, seems .to me that Mr. . Vailo is either ignorant on the whole question or ;is wilfully endeavouring to mislead the ratepayers, and his writings to the Herald also seem to indicate ;. that he has 'followed: the well-known maxim," When case weak, abuse i

the other side.'' I will in a very lew words indicate where tho shortage and increase Will come from. Roughly speaking, all ratepayers whoso land is worth more than: their improvements will have to pay more- in. rates than they do at i present, and as th» ratio of land value increases, so will the ratio of : new rates to old grates increase until, there being land value only, the'rates would bo about double what they aro now. On tho other hand, as the ratio ;of f land value to improvements decreased, so the rates .would, be decreased. *'. No ratepayer would pay ■ more than about. double what ho does now, unless his property (consisting of vacant land)' has in the past been most; shamefully undervalued by the assessor, but, on the other lianil, those who bad spent a largo amount . of money on improvements, in proportion to land value, say,, £400 of improvements on £50 worth of land!; would only pay about onequarter what they do now. 'Thus every landowner would be encouraged to improve his holding', not, as ; at- present, every improvement being taxed, oven to small green- " houses and ornamental trees. Mr. Vailo says the shortage and increase must come from the holders of moderate* sizes, freeholders and leaseholders,'arid further on says Mr. Fowlds has clearly shown that under this system leaseholders* rating must bo increased. I have shown above that such statements are absolutely false. All sizes of freeholds and leaseholds, small, moderate, or large, will pay more rates if they carry improvements worth less than the land on winch they stand; on tho other hand, nil sizes of; freehold* and leaseholds will pay less rates if they carry buildings, etc., worth '■■>"-■ more than the nd. If Mr. Vaile's cause is worth fighting for, why does he not go into details and argu- ; i ments, and when, he makes a statement be sure that it is absolutely correct?—l am, etc. . ~ , a ~,.,.. Leaseholder Auckland,, April 3, 1901.