RIVAL RATING SYSTEMS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LI, Issue 15563, 21 March 1914, Page 4

RIVAL RATING SYSTEMS.

BjAHUJiU AGi?A?Jp, A SPEAKIE BUCKLED. _BA-LLOT HELD TO-DAY,

Capital yalue is at .jjrgsent the basis if rating in "tie j>ordugn w 'O'ttJlJtibu. A section of tjie .catebayejs J[ayflurs the tinlm. proved value arid & poll will bo leld ts)-daj' to \d£cide'*tae frailer sides liavo displayed some activity in regard 'id .the matter, -and the result of the poll is being, a waited with lively interest. Last night Mr. 3." W. SbftOkelfpjd ad. dressed a crowded meeting in the Public Hall, ifl the interests of" those opposed to the change. A section of the' Audience was antagpni,s.Lic tp-the .s|le/ijiej's opinions, atid ifltetciiniifens jroni ."rieclders were frequent. Mr. Shackelford opened by referring ip the act ,-that iinimjjrflN-od value rating was" a plank' ip ,the single tax platform,' the aim" 'being to dfiattoy the commercial value of land.' fie proceeded to outline "the argument" that n6'i*al system of unimproved .value rating could be introduced, for it }youid.m*an tfak .vajaes would have to be prairie values, which la settled districts Could not be obtained for all land iiad been improved in some direction. He challenged the statement that the change would bring about any reduction in rents, affirming that such had not* been "the j:ase" in'any p ( f the towns whjeh. had ?P i»r adopted tbJe,4yß.t^ni. 33ie speaker 'went m to flupjtp sg.wes in sfpp|fort of "bis' tOD,t«ntjon-Jthat tb« .Capital s:alue' jfas'pDjiefi to the ,eew one." ' The •capital value of Otali.uhu was £sjL]S#32, v „co^tip.ue ,f '''ibp''§pe#ejf/"and : the to^prpyp4 ; ya}ue £ls&W.*- '33$ f?«sent fate of 2d would have to be 4d under the new system., and he emphasised the" boint Mat in the Ordinary ""course i-f things this rate would have to . increase. If,"'-on'tfle "other"' band,"~%he* T rale" was based on -capital value 'it wa-s not aeceseasily kpteased, for ujanrpyemeats kfiptincf^siffg' the capital' Value and thus thp.se who,.Jb ( ad theaisMy £o " .pay,, were -.taxed accord&yy. ' i -" J - At the conclusion of the address, many questions more or less to the point and. SSbfie or -3es"s" l, s<^^^ej^pßf''to- , ' ! lihe speaker. The ' f&bor "of "the Question? stpwed fbd*'^i^tiSfaVtiop''wi valuations is a coa.teb]uQJ()g--jcau|f towards " '.■'-• ■••''-

MB. ALISON'S VIEWS. "AN JIEQUITABLE SYSTEM." •Some stfpog jggainsjt the ,sye tefiijtf rating upoii'TKe proved value were giyen by*»Mr: -E. W. • Alison •dp an ia£S:»ew~ 'ysMeiSar. " ".The fundamental principle underlying taxation should be that every pepo# pay in proportion to his ab.fsty to pay $0 in proportion to the benefits he 1 " receives," said Mr. Alison.' "Assuming •th'js principle to be sound and i" contend tJiaJHi is, the system of rating on ihe uriimjiroved value operates ineqmtably." '' ~ t ' for .- n Olu.stration he said that under -itke system -a wealthy PS??,? on an uiAlinary " se'ciiop would ft?*- psy ■ wi« •In rMes'tnW'se l occupier of &> fotir-roomed oottagejon a.section of value adjoining it. The system was not intact rating on St 'all. Ifi Ti?&fy!sttfr-£Sjgo>in. VMch the land was' valued for rating purposes at its esijjuatedisefl^^lyalHer'"'^ assessing the value of a f>rb'perty"ttie ?apitaj'Valuo was estimated-and :tn6n" gn alio wapre was made foi the improvements'" and the balance feed as the unimproved value. * '—•--■' * ' ;,: "JSicliand" Experiences.

rt ' ' -'"'X '*"i ■*** Questioned '-is to' his experience of the advocated system, Mr.'Alison'said that it ;. had • bieen ' in 'opfKijj©n"fff GrsyTJivaaii' and • Devonport 'for a number of years, iand | there could be""-fep'* r |ipjj6t : tlat its results had ~h£en j ,4?.trin^^l''ip»the,4g|6.£ep|tß -of these |)ofOTpis." ■*-ft "hjs_ the'" effect <_cf increasing t^at-ipnnpon ! sfee M?<i to such §S,,£stenk'?Te 'ci>p%u^" Spfew * personr is -lb'# -Sl'-fee "<;armcU"i6ford'.to bpld'-fliote :|daa a' very iMit*d %ss,: It therefore 'fends tooySr.criSrftmg) s g£d -Qop;secpientjj .is opposed'' to..what.'.prpgressiye and"-'-' public-spirited persons: •» ; ppste, ;namelx ; itfe*-Bjfey«Biion Mj6v&cs^iss." A Striking Argument. ""Asked if he had < any.definite,jlhisfcra;tions o? contention,' j stated • tfe§£ . M jnaay r T but; »pge yirtosj °at pWmifferitly. In'borough' whicli adopted' :%; ! sXf&te'"a ■|6ari%al\ ' a ta&rty s|tfgs area of land, on whjph an. eight-robmfed honse was.erected. JSSsr the #ld.&sGjtesm of fajjing' on the' capital »alue"thirlh|ri paid*'nnder £9 per year. In the first year -6f" u 'th3 _new system to.pay Jjyer- : f.6u>'sni# Tfte r conseqnetjce •was that owner fir* question, finding i that the 'rates^r^ssedrjoo.-teplyj upon •him, ''Suhmvidedi and what was ".a--sne* open area Ting'sCri ive view was" now practically covered with |ystenP t 9Ss certainiy not conducive towards* ;- town-planning," about Wfk Ms. J*rit>- ' ten. ■' - "* z - '•"■■ v -* f -. w * . Auckland y. Wellington. Mr. Alison concluded marking ■$ .epmparison between Auckland and Wellington af capitaF&alup rating. In Wellington, -where the new system -was «3fy Was MM. higher.jn^ime;,andjenta-deafer, -bat .the progress. .of ,the town .was : mE'c^bebmd- t that i <Jf- AncjWand: ;j, He m not infer that the position of Auckland ;^.'#i?' ; "to ftySyslera oPttxasionV v sut-it tcould not be urged that the introduction jot rating on ummproveT values in Wellington had tended], to ,eh* i ar>en rents or advance the general-intecests of the town as against Auckland. ■—'•'"■ \ ■ .If the system wer,e adopted in such a. borough as Otahubjuyit mean that a isenous tax would be 'placed upon the iowaerTfr.ofiinWareas five acres, ioff w.bjcb m living. He rra(rnc-''iiesifetion in* saying that'the ?mPSm ' Pf the proposal' Would not 'teha towards the general benefit of''-the people nor, so. tke-prpgressiop of- the boroggjj.