RATING UNIMPROVED VALUES.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4512, 13 November 1901, Page 2

RATING UNIMPROVED VALUES.

(By P. J- O’Regan.) Were I to take Hr Samuel Vaile seriouslv, I would probably resent nis calling mo, and those who think with me, a of thieves. To take Mr \ aue seriouslv, however, would be to pajs him a “compliment which the public have not yet accorded him. 1 propose, therefore, to pass hi s Billingsgate by with) good-natured indifference. Mr Samuel Vaile ifetorm s us that he has been engaged in the single tax controversy for eleven years —against his will, lie has been animated by a lolty public spirit to save New Zealand irom the machinations of a set of thieves! If so, it is a pity that Mr Vaile has not yet succeeded in understanding tbs subject. That ho does not understand it is the only alternative one has to calling him something ugly, and so let us give Mr Vaile’s honesty tho benefit of tho doubt. “Single tax,” ho tolls us, “means Communism in land.” Does it, indeed*? Henry George was certainly what Mr Vaile admits ho was—a brilliant writer. But he always wrote what he meant in plain, unmistakable English. The single tax does not, cannot, mean communism in land. It does mean that the' rent of land shall bo nationalised, but that land must necessarily bo occupied and possessed individually. The railways, for instance, are our common property, but we have no communism in connection with them. I invito Mr Samuel Vaile to quote mo a single line from any of Henry George’s writings in favour of communism or socialism, when Mr Vaile gives mo the quotation 1 shall have pleasure in answering him further. Meanwhile, let mo remark on the difficulty in discussing a queatiorf with a man who, while parading Himself as an authority, is ignorant of tho first principles of tho subject he attempts to debate. Witli the cunning characteristic of his kind, Mr Vaile does not deny that tho land is rightfully the common birthright of all the people. Ho avoids this because he knows well that it would “go down,” and hence he has recourse to innumerable and irrelevant side issues by which ho tries to arouse sympathy for bis friends, the land speculator and the mortgagee. “The single taxers say,” continues Mr Vaile, ‘ cuat tho whole of tho land belongs to tne community.” Will Mr Vaile deny tho truth of that proposition ? Will he say that one man has a better right to the earth than another? Will he deny that birth is title deed for every human creature? If he does deny this, let him also show us his proofs. I opine that ho will avoid _ impugning, what every man knows in his heart of hearts to be an eternal truth. “The freehold tenure has become necessary,” says Mr Vaile. But he does not tell as what he means by a freehold. There a.ro at least three estates of freeholding in lane! —an estate in fee simple, an estate tail, and an estate for life. The last two are frequently lesser estates than a. leasehold. Presumably Mr Samuel Vailo means by “freehold” an estate in fee simple. But then he should say what ho means. A man who has been engaged for eleven years fighting a set of robbers really can have no excuse for using _ clumsy weapons. When Mr Samuel Vaile says exactly what he means by a freehold I shall bo quite ready to further discuss the question from tho historic, moral, or other standpoint with him, though I would much prefer to discuss tho subject with some one who did not leave it to bis opponent to correct hie egregious blundering. I now leave the single tax until Mr Vaile fulfils the above conditions, and pass to his attack on rating on. unimproved values. But on looking at it I see nothing to reply to, except a tabulated set of statements, the perusal of which may well provoke a smile. If rating on unimproved values is such a horrible thing, the fifty districts wherein it has boon adopted should, now be in. rather a bad way. It has been in force some time now, for instance in dose proximity to the city of Wellington. Yet none of tho evils depicted by Mr Samuel Vaile have manifested themselves; at any rate, the ratepayers have not demanded a reversion to the old system, though the law allows them tho fullest facility to do so- The system has been adopted in four Wellington suburban boroughs— Melrose, Karori, Onslow and Lower Hutt, and it has been in vogue in the two first-named for several years. But we have not heard from the ratepayers there that securities have been destroyed, that cottagers have been despoiled, or that any of Mr Vaile’s terrors have manifested themselves. In the Onglow borough nine-tenths of the ratepayers pay less. There are s everal estates which pay increased rates, certainly, including one of 200 acres on the confines of the city, and, curiously enough, since the adoption of the new system this particular estate is being “cut up.” From Mr Vaile’s point of view it may be “robbery” to shift rates from the poor cottager on to the wealthy proprietor, whose land is enriched by its proximity to a growing city. But Mr Samuel Vaile will nave some trouble in proving that this kind of “robbery” • is a bad thing for the community. It is, no doubt, to his way of thinking, a subversion of the rights of “proputty” that rates should be so adjusted as to induce the utilisation of land; but the average man, Mr V aile and his eleven years of campaigning notwithstanding, still persists in believing that he has some interest in the land, as well as the territorial magnate for whom Mr Vaile is so full of solicitude. As another instance, let us take the town of Feildiug. The land of that flourishing borough was originally bought for ton shillings per acre. Yet, to-clay, exclusive of all improvements, it is worth £42 per acre. Rat. ers on unimproved values may be “thieves,” but they still maintain that the whole community has a share iu that value, and Mr Vaile is cordially invited to show wherein they are wrong. Any how,' the ratepayers of Feildiug have adopted the new system, and with tho gratifying result that the rates on several absentee owners who made no improvements have been doubled. Consequently, their lands are now being offered for sale, and the Feilding correspondent of the “New Zealand Times” told us recently that building is proceeding so rapidly there that tbs representative of an illustrated paper, who went there to get views of the town, postponed doing so until all the buildings in course of erection have been completed! It is somewhat curious that if rating on unimproved values be such a vicious thing, people should build at all. One can. quite understand that the groa£ heart of Mr Samuel Vaile goes qut to the poor oppressed absentee who finds his rates doubled. But raters on unimproved values believe that the community is not for absentees, but for the industrious and resident settlers whose industry and enterprise make the absentee’s estate valuable, and whose services are penalised by taxation, while the absentee nockets the benefits and runs no risks. If it is “theft” to advocate a system which takes the burden off the industrious and places it on the idle specu.

lator, it is the kind of theft which raters on unimproved values are proud to advocate. They believe that the utilisation of land siiould be encouraged, and they are unable to share Mr Samuel Vaile’s sympathy for the few wealthy capitalists who may have to pay a lew pounds more per year.

\Vheii Mr Samuel Valle was in Wellington recently he prudently declined an invitation to address a public meeting on this question, .personally, x was very' much disappointed at that, because I would have enjoyed the spectacle of Mr Vaile haranguing a public audience on behalf of his downtrodden friends—the land shark ana the mortgagee. It is a pity that such a champion of law and order should hide his luminous qualities in printer's ink. If, however, -Ur Samuel Vaile should over address a public meeting in 'Wellington, he will hud that the “thieves’’ are not afraid of him. In conclusion, let me assure Mr Vaile that I will handle him a little more seriously' when he gives m c that quotation from Henry’ George, and when ho tells mc what he moans by’ a “freehold.”

(By Atlantis.) A great deal of word-painting is going on in connection with this subject. Un looking at the letters appearing in! the papers, two distinct methods of argument are seen: those in favour of the change deal only with general aspects and obtain general results; those opposed to the change deal with concrete cases and attempt to deduce a general result. Now, it is shown in logic that to obtain a strictly correct result we may reason from general cases to general cases, from particular cases to particular cases, or from general cases to particular cases; ail these must give a perfectly correct result if our premises are correct. It is also shown that we may' argue from cases to general cases, though, oven if the pre. miscs bo correct, the general case may or may' not be correct. This is very’ evident from a simple example, for instance, I can lick Jim and I can-lick Bill, therefore I can lick all boys. The absurdity is evident. Now, if those opposed to the change have to resort to the latter method it is evident that there must bo something wrong. Let us see if wo cannot arrive at the true state of affairs without using .this forlorn hope. Rating on unimproved values means the rating on the value of the land alone, not, as I have heard some say who should have known hotter, on the value of land which has not improved in value. It is evident that the same amount of money' must be raised whichever form of rating is employed, but in the new form there will bo less value to derive the money' from, so that the rate will do higher; but this ■does not mean that more will be paid in taxes by any particular owner, for ho is rated on less value, and his tax is equal to the rate multiplied by the value of his property taxed. If the value of the improvements on his land is n timer; that of his land, and the value of the total improvements in the whole district m times the total value of the land, it can be shown that his new tax will bo m plus 1, divided by n plus 1 times his present tax, from which anyone by supplying the numbers will see how he will be affected by the change. It is evident from this that those with largo improvements compared with the value of their land will pay less, and vice versa, and that the farther away from the centres of industry, such as Lamhton quay and Customhouse quay, one is, the less one will have to pay in taxes, for the value of the laud is less. Mr Vaile, of Auckland, stated in his letter that it was only the thin edge of a wedge by which the Government would seize all the laud. Really, such nervous persons ought not to delay seeing a medical man. Supposing that the Government did increase the tax to an abnormal extent, what would he the effect? No one would bo anxious to burden himself with a heavy tax, so that owners would bo anxious to sell any land which they cannot use, others would not be anxious to buy. therefore the value of the land would go down and the tax with it until equilibrium would be again established. Now, this is the reason why the change is opposed to a great extent, for the opposers have a large amount of land unimproved; it will increase their taxes and lessen their chance of robbing their neighbours by speculation. The opposers state that there is very little unimproved land in Wellington. Then why are they so afraid? Take a walk up Te Aro or Molesworth street, or even some parts of Lambton quay, and you will seo the reason —a piece of valuable land with a combined dog-kennel and pigstye on it. They call these things improvements I If th.e change takes place these will give place to real “improvements,” good shops and houses that will not have to be condemned by the Public Health Officer, otherwise they may linger till the worms and bugs dig them up. Mr Vaile states that it is merely the .thin end of a wedge, the thick end'of which conceals single tax. It is very good of him to point it out, hut he must surely see that it is unnecessary, for if single tax is not a blessing we may deal with it when the time comes; the single taxers do not run the country. Wo, the people of New Zealand, rule. By going off into single tax views ho tries to drag the rulers of New Zealand away from the point at issue, and very neatly he goes about it; but don’t let ns be carried away from our own good judgment. Again, he states that in time it will reduce everyone to the position of tenants to the Government, paying the highest rack rent that can bo wrung from them. What an absurdity. Does he not know that rent is a perfectly definite thing that at no time car. bo forced permanently above or below a certain value, and that it is only by increase of population or industry that this value can vary. No one need he afraid of being rack-rented by the Government under the new system, for it is impossible. / (Byj Ratepayer.) I am not myself a single taxer, and as a practical man I regret that Mr Samuel Vaile, of Auckland, should have introduced this question into the issue of rating on the unimproved values now before the ratepayers of Wellington. Seeing that he is not a citizen, it would have been better if he had allowed the ratepayers and Councillors to have ar guod and decided the matter for themselves. It would seem from his letter that there is some opposition between him and a section of persons known as single taxers in Auckland, and that he has confounded rating on unimproved land values with their doctrines. Those who have taken the trouble to re?d his letter will have observed that although he purports to deal ■with the unimproved value system be studiously avoids it. and has set up another issue, that of single tax, which is of course repugnant to the ratepayers, and he has thereby adroitly enough drawn the proverbial herring across the track. After careful observation and some study of the subject, I am of opinion that there is no connection whatever between the doctrines of Henry Gcorg° and rating on unimproved values. As Mr Vaile ras gone out of

his way to import foreign matter into the contest, and to accuse the advocate-; of the unimproved value system of ulterior motives, branding them as single taxpayers and confiscators, I, as an advocate of the proposed system, feel that my escutcheon has Dceu sullied, aud Mr \ ailo must not be aggrieved if I look for his real motive. Now, as a business man, 1 ask Mr Vaile faiily and squarely, why the person who buys a piece of laan for logitimato purposes, builds upon re and uses it, should have his improvements taxed, and to that extent ivviiliscated, in order to encourage tho vacant lot industry business ? 1 know of one piece of land in tho centre of the city that has been gambled ten times in that number of years, and it is still vacant- The agents and lawyers aro, of course, tho chief gainers iu such transactions, and it is from this section of the community that the greatest opposi. lion to the new system comes. Mr ) aile’s profession as a laud agent is just as honourable as that of any other man, yet a man of liner sensibilities would hesitate under the circumstances to come forward as the advocate of a, Lad system, which is chiefly responsible for tho slums of the city and tor the wretched and insanitary buildings which disfigure our leading thoroughfares, hip Vailo’s attempt to produce a contest bettveen tho land-owning and non landowning classes is highly censurable, be. cause it is in no way involved. It is ■ ho laud-owning class who arc at present paying the rales, and tho question under discussion is whether the incidence o' tho tax as between themselves is

equitable, whether it is right to tax tho owner who improves his property in proportion as he improves it, and so proportionately to exempt tho non-im-prover. This is tho real issue. It :‘s simply a contest between people of the same class and the outside non landowning class have nothing whatever to do with it, beyond the fact that they would like to see the city improved and better buildings erected. Tire following example will bring tho point I am contending for clearly home;—Let A and E have two pieces of unimproved land of equal value on which each pay under the present system say £2O a year by way of rates, thus making a total of £4O. Now, if A doubles tho value of his property througn tho expenditure of capital and the employment of labour, his rates will be increased to £26 13s 4rt, while the rates of it, in consequence of A’s exertions, will bo reduced to £l3 6s Bd. This is manifestly unjust. Without showing how ho arrives at the extraordinary conclusion, Mr Vaile states that tho proposed system will enable the masses to shift their responsibilities upon the land owners, but if- this were true, and it is not, tho present system is equally suitable for that purpose,; consequently Mr Valle’s loading contention falls to tho ground. As a matter of fact:, the picture which ho has drawn would bo true of any form of taxation if carried to excess. Mr Vaile has to learn that in nature and science good and evil may bo drawn from tho same source through proportions and quantities. Tims, the medicine that cures the sick man could also kill him, but modi, cine is not to be condemned for that reason. So likewise in tho system, if taxation is properly administered it may, while-it produces revenue, encourage industry, but on the other hand if it is carried to excess there will be a diminution of both revenue and industry. ‘Mr Vaile will have heard that there is more joy in heaven over tho one sinner who hath repented than.over tho ninety-nine who never left the fold, and therefore, if, instead of buckling on hi s armour when a now poll is proposed in any district, ho directed his attention to the reclamation of those numerous districts who are doing so well under the now system, ho would have accomplished something, rightly or wrongly, that would ho a substantial argument against tho .extension of rat. ing on tho unimproved value. Tho fact that the system has been an unparalleled success wherever it has been tried, that it has never been revoked, and that Mr Vaile leaves such districts severely alone, discounts materially the pcsition which ho has up, and proves conclusively that his pictures and assertions are the products of his imagination rather than of facts drawn from experience.