RATING ON UNIMPROVED VALUES.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11724, 5 August 1901, Page 7

RATING ON UNIMPROVED VALUES.

' . . TO THE EDITOR. . " a Sir, ~ I M "ply to Mr. Blyth's letter of Pri--3 day, will yon let. me repeat that ihc City r Council officials filled .in all the j slips with the names of the rate* payers, the address; of th© qualilymg property, and the rate now paid. That the same slips we then handed over to the i Land Valuation. Department, whose officials 5 are entirely responsible for the remaining data. Thus, any omission, such as Mr. Ulyth refers to, is entirely the fault of these officers. If the gentleman had only thought a little he would have seen there was absolutely nothing to be gained by the omission, and lie would have concluded that it was unintentional. Mr. Blyth reflects unkindly and needlessly upon his own reputation for intelligence, when he suggests that he was selected as fitted to be fooled in such a simple way. . _ The facts in his case are that the Land valuation Department-sent the slip belonging i to Mr. Blyth attached to the one belonging , to his neighbour, Mr. Williamson, thus indicating to our committee that the one block valuation covered the two ratable propertes. This appears to have been an error, which Mr. Blyth was able easily to discover. Will you let _me suggest that the exercire i of _ reasonable intelligence, backed by the spirit of fairness, will explain similar anomalies, if they exist. Just now tlio best men of the city on both sides of this question, recognise that the new proposals are sufficiently serious tc demand rational consideration, , and that tho main question of " What 13 tho , fair and equitable way of assessing our local taxation," should not be overshadowed by shallow quibbles and misunderstandings, nor by unworthy reflections or contentions.—l am, etc., WESLEY spragg. Chairman Eating on Unimproved Values ' Committee. TO THE EDITOR. . Sir,— read with much interest, vour report in to-day's paper, of the discussion on the proposed new method of rating. Under ■ penalty of being classed as knave or fool by ' Mr. Fowlds, I must confess myself as yet, unconvinced by his arguments. lie says "the ■ present system taxes those who get no benefit from the expenditure of the tuxes, and those who get all the benefit go partly free." Well, take a road with some vacant allotments, and the rest with houses on them, who benefits most by the expenditure on that road, on asphalted footpaths, street lamps, drainage, etc., etc.? Surely the householders? Then let. him also pay the, most. This is surely only fair, and in accord with ' Mr. Fowld's maxim, " That each should pay in proportion to the benefit received." It will bo said, no doubt, that tho owner of the vacant allotment benefits by the rise in value of his allotment due to municipal expenditure. Granted, but so also does the owner of the occupied allotment, in an equal degree in that respect, and to a still greater, by virtue of his daily usage of said improvements. What the supporters of this motion really seem to be driving at is the taxation of the unearned increment in value of the land, only they do not say so, otherwise, why do they take the improved value of land (not unimproved) as a basis—improved value due to expenditure of capital and labour, and increase of population, etc.—and not the unimproved value, as it was when the first white man landed. If, as they state, land is the source of all wealth, surely its original value should be taken as the basis, before it became contaminated by other foreign elements, such as capital, etc. V Trusting the ratepayers will, give this important question the attention it deserves, and not be too apathetic to record their votes on the 6th,-I am, etc., 0. R. YOUNG HUSBAND August 1, 1901. TO THE EDITOR. Sir.— have just read the report of the meeting in Auckland re the above, and conclude that very little more light is thrown on the subjcct, the bulk of the argument being seemingly on a side issue, i.e., single tax. One statement by Mr. Vaile, and evidently ignored by the subsequent speakers, I think deserves more than a passing notice. The paragraph read as follows: —"If the proposed system were passed the city's revenue would be blocked at once, as under it, if a thousand houses were built, not a penny would be added to the income of the city. The city's revenue could not be increased, etc." . Evidently Mr. Vaile has not even read the Act, otherwise he would not have made such an absurd statement. Let - him read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest" subsection 3 of section 15 of the Rating on Unimproved Value Act, 1896, and I fancy he will retract; thus tho section, "The rates made and levied on the unimproved Value under this Act shall be so adjusted as to equal las nearly as may be, but not exceed in their producing capacity, the rates made and levied on the annual or capital value, as the case may be, under the Eating Act, 1894." You will perceive, sir, that even if the poll is carried to rate on the unimproved value we do not get away from the fact that we still , require the annual capital or gross value as a basis to ascertain the amount of rate leviable in the pound on the unimproved value, and the unimproved rate will actually be your Is rate on the gross value divided In a different manner "to each ; ratepayer. L Personally, 1 have no bias for . either system, especially as under the new 1 one we will still pay rates on all improvements - indirectly, and it seems to me that there are sound arguments on both sides. In country 1 districts the new system will heavily hit absentee held unimproved, and also unimproved i land held by poor men, while in your city the rating value of the large blocks of buildings will be spread over a-number of ratepayers who hold ■ unoccupied or poorly-im-proved sections, instead of being wholly payable by the owners.—l am, etc., ' W. J. Conrad i. Ngaruawahia, August 2, 1901. [The local,bodies must get as much revenue as they are getting at present. But they will lose what they at present get from new houses and other improvements, and so will have to increase tho tax on the land.—ED.] : ; TO THE EDITOR. Sir The opponents of this measure appear to be somewhat inconsistent. They insist that the effect -will be -to very considerably reduce the selling value of the land, and in the next place insist that it will also result in overcrowding. So the argument runs thus. If a man can buy. a 40ft ■ allotment after the adoption of this system for the same price as he can now buy 30ft, he will proceed to build two houses on the 40ft, where he would have built only > one if this wicked Act had not come into force. Why should he? His 40ft allotment has cost him just what his 30ft would have done. Oh! but all the rates will then be charged on the land, and this will compel him to build two houses in place of one, because the,.taxation on his 40ft allotment will be so excessive. Surely, they forget that his building will not be taxed at all, or any other improvement he chooses to put on his land, and the consequence will be that the rates on his 40ft of land with one building on it will not be so much as he previously paid on his 30ft allotment with one building on it. . . - - ,' ' ■} . I do not wish to be understood to admit that the selling value of land will be. reduced 25 per cent.; I have merely adopted, these figures to illustrate the fallacy of the argument that land values will decrease, and at the same time biddings necessarily will be crowded on to smaller allotments. Another reason urged why buildings will be put up in excess: of requirements is this: A pathetic littl- story is told of the poor man who for years has stuck to his little bit of freehold, and has cheerfully paid the small rate charged, buoyed up by the hope of eventually building his little home on it, who would be confronted with an incroased rate, and will at once use feverish efforts to put a building on it sooner than he otherwise would have done, and so he will swell tho number of cottages built in excess of requirements.. Poor chap, he will shortly be living in his own house, erected with money borrowed at a very cheap rate, and he will have no more rent to pay; he can devote the rent to payment ■of the principal and interest on his loan, and shortly he will be living rent free; he has my hearty sympathy in his deep distress. The reverse of this pathetic little story is not , mentioned often by the friends of the ] • poor n an." They say nothing of the.man who ; sits >down to wait while improvement on all sides go on round his land, the rates. to find < the money for the improvements being con- : tributed in an excessive degree by those who i have improved, and who are taxed for every l improvement made. When the poor man is trying to get hold of an allotment on which to build—somewhere within a mile 01 so of his work—and finds they are all held by men .demanding excessive prices for them; if he ventures to hint to such holders that it would pay them better to sell than to hold, they smile at him to think of his ignorance, 01, perhaps, they condescend to explain to him that as the rates on unoccupied land are a ' mere bagatelle, they can, and will, hold the land against occupation till he—or someone else—pays the exorbitant price they demand for it. * - . 1 Why is the question of single tax dragged into this controversy? : Because without it there would be no bogey to frighten the people 1 with. I venture to say there are scores of people who will vote against this reform for no other reason than the fear that it is the "thin end of the wedge" to some coming 1 disaster. Every reform attempted has -always been "the thin edge of the wedge" to the disruption ol the Empire, and its result would be to "shake the Empire to its very ! foundations," but " the Empire" appears to be pretty solid still. A word to the "horny-handed sons of toil." i think that is what they call you " when they 1 warn your blooming votes, my boys, when they want your blooming votes." " Codlin is your friend, not Short," and whenever you find a special interest taken in you by Codlin (represented in this case by the opponents of rating on unimproved values) give him every credit for his disinterested action. Lean on ■ Codlin, and he will pull you throiiah, and if ' he does not pull you through he will pull you 1 all the same, if i? is only by the leg.—l am, 1 etc., , , J. THORNES. • 91, Queen-street.