THE SINGLE TAX SCHEME OF ROBBERY.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11780, 9 October 1901, Page 7

THE SINGLE TAX SCHEME OF ROBBERY.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—l quite agree with your correspondent, "A Small Freeholder," that we are I •' treating single taxers to a good deal more i notice than their insignificance deserves," ! and I suggest that it would be a wise thing ' for you:- correspondents to refuse to discuss : the matter further, until the leaders of this frothy little crowd have given straightfori ward replies to the questions which appear i below. For my part I have never ceased to won- ! dor how a scheme so outrageously dishonest, so absolutely and utterly impracticable, so I carelessly thought out, and so mischievous in the results that must ensue on its adoption, could command the attention it has done. 1 can only account for this in two < ways. First, Henry George was one of the most, brilliant of writers, and he had an especial gift for arresting the attention of the unthinking crowd but the acknowledged thinkers have never taken any notice of his theories, except to laugh at and deride them. Henry George, unfortunately, employed his great power as a writer to persuade people that it is right to steal, and again, unfortunately, there are too many people in every community ready to accept such teaching. Second, the real nature of the proposal is not generally understood by the public, while its worst effects arc carefully concealed and kopt in the background. As it is a matter of first importance that this should be clearly understood, I will, sir, with your permission, again state what the single tax proposal really means. 1. To take absolutely from every man the whole of any land he may possess, and without giving him any compensation whatever. In other words, they propose to take from him all that portion of his estate which has a permanent, imperishable, and improving value, and to leave to him, his wife, and children only that portion which rapidly deteriorates, and ultimately becomes valueless. 2. While taking his land to make him responsible for all the duties pertaining to a landowner. As Henry George expresses it, they "will take the kernel and leave him the husks." 3. They propose to take from every individual or company, every charity, every friendly society, every trades union, every penny or other savings bank, and also without giving any compensation, every pound of capital they may have invested in mortgages over land. 4. To make "land occupiers and -users" solely responsible for collecting the whole revenue of the State, leaving them to recoup themselves if they can by charging a higher price for their products, and to exempt every other class of the community from any taxation whatever. 5. To create such a tenancy as would render it impossible for the leaseholder to realise the value of his improvements. 6. To reduce the whole nation to the position of yearly tenants paying the highest rack-rent that can Ins wrung out of them. 7. To destroy all securities for the payment of life insurance policies. 8. To destroy all security for the payment of trust funds, bank deposits, friendly societies' funds, trades union funds, etc. 9. To destroy all protection foi our local I industries. 10. To throw our markets open to the i cheap products of American gaols, Chinese, j German, and other factories. i 11. To throw the liquor traffic open, and , allow everybody to brew, distil, or sell drink ; as they think proper. 12. To make the country land " occupier" ! provide free gas, free water, free baths, free j trams, free electric light, free dancing j saloons, etc., for the uso of city residents, j while from the naturo of things ho cannot j enjoy these " luxurios" himself. This is what the single-taxers propose, and I hope the press, and press correspondents, will join in refusing to take any further noI tice of them until they give a straightfor- | ward answer to the following questions: — I 1. Seeing that they propose to absolutely j take without payment the best portion of the j securities held by the various life insurance ; companies, how do they propose to secure to i the policyholders that the said policies will ; be paid as they mature? I 2. How do they propose to deal with the I liquor traffic? 3. Seeing that all freehold security would ! be destroyed, how do thoy propose that trust ■ funds, life insurance funds, savings bank I funds, friendly societies' funds, etc., shall bo i invested? | 4. How do they propose to secure to the '. "occupier" the full value of his improve- ; ments?

5. Do they propose that the Government is to have the right of le-entry for non-payment of rent? 6. Is it to be a condition that the Government is to re-enter, say, if rent remains unpaid for six months? 7. When a property is unoccupied and the improvements cannot be sold, hoi the property let, is the owner of the improvements to be charged with the " ground rental vaiue" till another occupier can be found? 8. During this period, at whoso expense is the property to he maintained in repair and fire insurance paid? ' I am, etc., Samuel VaiiS. Auckland.