THE TAXATION OF LAND VALUES

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 7300, 2 December 1910, Page 3

THE TAXATION OF LAND VALUES

(To the Editor “N.Z. Times.") Sir,—ln his last letter but one Mr j Hewlett said; "All I (Mr Hewlett) said was that the single tax would not make land cheaper to the purchaser.” This was his original contention. I dealt with this, showing that the greater the tax on land values the lower would bo the net rent received by the landlord, and therefore the lower would be the purchase price of tho land. Then Mr Hewlett shifted his ground' and took the case of a tenant farmer. I dealt with that case also, and Mr -Rowlett was constrained to admit that “it is of course obvious that if you confiscate all land, and use tho rental instead of ordinary taxes you ’benefit’ tho people who haven’t got land.” That is to say, ho admitted that it is obviously cheaper for a man to pay, say, £5 in land value tax than to pay £25 in rent, rates and taxes. Mr Hewlett now says that ho considers this "mere evasion.” But if Mr Hewlett will think the matter over quietly ho will find that no man can use land in New Zealand—or elsewhere for that matter—without paying rent, rates, and taxes; and, therefore, economically speaking, rates and taxes may be fairly counted in as part of what lie has to pay if he wants to use the land, and therefore as part of his rent; just as a tax on tobacco becomes in effect part of tho cost of the tobacco. Anyhow, Mr Hewlett cannot by considering it a "mere evasion” get away from the fact that the tenant who pays £5 in land value tax instead of £35 in rent, rates, and taxes, gains £2O a year under the single tax. Mr Howiett has carefully evaded my point that "a substantial tax on land values will kill land speculation and land monopoly, and that, without land speculation ami land monopoly, land must be cheaper than with them.” Ho also still coyly refuses “to say a word as to the morality of this wholesale confiscation”—not of laud, but of land values; and, wisely no doubt, refrains from attempting to answer my pointed question—" Why should it beeonfiecation, spoliation, and robbery for tho State to take for public purposes the land values produced by tho public, while nothing is said about taxes which take for public purposes values created by and belonging to the individual, not to the public?"—l am, etc., ARTHUR WITHY. November 29th.