RATING AT BIRKENHEAD.

New Zealand Herald, Volume L, Issue 15298, 10 May 1913, Page 4

RATING AT BIRKENHEAD.

Sir,—The result of the : Birkenhead poll " for ; rating on unimproved 1 values shows that the - prophesying powers of " Nemo" are very limited. As he makes some statements an his letter which are likely to mis- . A: lead the uninformed public upon this great : f question, it is necessary to correct some of v his errors. I wish to 1 point . out that the time has - arrived when that, large tract v of unused land owned by the Sugar Com- ; pany has become very valuable, and when the next Government valuation is made, the difference in rates which the company !•' now pays, and will pay, is very slight. ; This is not of so great importance, ' as the principle which underlies the rating on un- 1 improved values. The question is "Is the Sugar Company a' greater detriment to Birkenhead than the bolder of idle land ? " • There are hundreds; of acres of land hit Birkenhead in ti-tree and gorse. .If a rate be levied upon the Sugar Company, it is passed on to the consumer, the same as the cost of prosecuting them is now being passed on to the consumer. On the other hand if the ti-tree and gorge land is taxed it will encourage the using of the land, and prevent gambling in the unearned increment. ' The fact is that the ; land being unrated and 'under-rated has prevented a large number of employees of the Sugar Company taking advantage of the company's liberal offer to build houses for themselves, because the • speculators ; have taken advantage of this offer to incroase the price of the . vacant land. — " Nemo" does • not realise that borough, rates are levied to meet' borough expenditure only. It is not the business of the council to discriminate between the rich and poor and to rate accordingly, but to - make every man pay for value received. If two men own land of equal value, and .r .the both get an equal expenditure of public money, then _ both should pay equally, irrespective of the . value of the improvements upon those sections. It must ■ be remembered that it is not the object of those who advocate the rating on unim- • proved: values to tax a man because he . is rich,'but to prevent the increased value given to land by . the public expenditure, being appropriated by the rich. The argument regarding- the rich man with the / £1000 house and the poor man with tha x £300 house is a mythical red herring. The,: richest man in the community is he who can afford /to hold land • idle, and if we tax a man lor building » house we should ■ carry the taxing of improvements to its, logical conclusion by taxing each strawberry plant and. each fruit tree, as by a similar comparison the rich man is he who has 20,000 strawberry plants against his . poorer neighbour with 2000. If we want , the fruit of the earth in plenty, we must ' rate the land on which the fruit, can be;:; grown, but if we rate improvements the land will be held idle and become the • happy hunting ground of the land value, gambler. This game has now been partially stopped in Birkenhead, and it is only a matter of time when the people will see that community . created values must be taken for public purposes, and the value created by the individual be,left untaxed./ In other words, no rates or fines on homes j or industry. - A. E. Wood. Birkenhead. '