LAND AND LABOUR

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7929, 12 October 1911, Page 5

LAND AND LABOUR

AN INSTRUCTIVE CONTRAST. ELECTORS, PLEASE NOTE! [This column, weekly set aside for the discussion of laud and labour problems, is edited by Mr Arthur Withy, general secretary of the Now Zealand Land Values League, with whom alone rests responsibility for the opinions expressed therein.] Tho Wellington special correspondent of tho loading Opposition Journal, the “New Zealand Herald,” in an analysis of the “comprehensive return relating to the freehold lands of tho Dominion, as they were held on March 31st, 1910,” presented to tho House on September 28th, quoted a table showing “tho total capital values and unimproved values to the nearest million pounds in tbo Dominion,” concluding with the signlfuant comment, "This table shown that in thirty-two years’ tho value of the employable .surface of tho Dominion has been nearly trebled.” By whom has this value been nearly trebled? And for whom? '

From 1878 to 1891 “tho value of the employable surface of the Dominion”—that ts to say, the unimproved Ijmd values of New Zealand —increased only from tdxtytbree millions to seventy-six hiillions sterling. From 2891 to 1910, however, these values increased from seventy-six millions to 175 millions, or far more than doubled. An increase of nearly 100 millions sterling in,say, twenty years, as against an increase of thirteen millions in thirteen years I Or an increase ot nearly .£5,000,000 a year as against an increase of only .01,000,000 a year! in short, wo have her©

THLK.TEEN YEARS OF STAGNATION AND TWENTY YEARS OF FROGRESS AND PROSPERITY! And it is worthy of note that the thirteen years of stagnation coincide with the term of office of "continuous (Conservative) Ministry” and with tho period of operation of the old obnoxious property tax, wnercas the twenty years of progress and prosperity date from tho coming into force of the land tax, and coincide with the term of office thus far enjoyed by the present Liberal-Labour Government. Electors, pleaso note! But, to return to our question: By whom has "the value of tho employable surface of the Dominion. . . . been nearly trebled?" And for whom? By whom have these 100 millions sterling of land values been produced? And by whom are they pocketed ? No intelligent man can honestly deny that those land values are produced by the growth, the increased prosperity, and the increased expenditure (on public works and on public services) of the community as a whole. Nor can ho deny that by far the greater part of these land values, produced by the public and therefore justly belonging to the public, is now pocketed by private individuals. During the'past twenty years our population has increased from 635,000 to over a million, our prosperity has increased by leaps and bounds, and some forty-two millions of borrowed, money and eight millions of revenue, or fifty millions in all, have been 'tepent by the Government on public works and public services. These, undoubtedly, are tho great factors that have produced these hug© land values, this huge increase of nearly £100,000,000. Surely, therefore, tho time has come when we should TAKE! FOR THE PUBLIC A LARGER SHARE of the land values produced by the public 1 If not, why not ? Tho present taxable "value of the employable surface of the Dominion," allowing for all exemptions, is .£122,000,000. A further tax of Id in the £ on land values, therefore, without exemptions for this second penny, would yield in round figures ,£500,000, or one-half of ono per cent, on tho .£100,000,000 increase since 1891. Surely, then, to levy a further Id in the £ on land values, without exemptions for the second penny, would be to take for tho public a vory modest additional share of the land vahies produced by the public. To do so, however, would enable us to reduce the Customs taxes on food, and on necessaries not produced in i\ew Zealand by £500,000 a year. And, since the middleman’s profits on the Customs duties amount to at least 50 per cent., this moans a reduction in the cost of living of at least £750,000_ a year—a reduction averaging, that is to sa3 r , 15s per year for overy man, woman, and child in New Zealand, or 75s a year fox the average family of five. GREAT HULK OF LANDHOLDERS WOULD GREATLY BENEFIT. Nor would the small landholders, whether in town or country, be injured in any way. On the contrary, they would greatly benefit. Rather mor© than 75 per cent, of tho landholder of New Zealand have holdings of an unimproved value of less than £SOO. The great bulk v of them come much below that figure; and, as against this reduction in the cost of living of at least 75s a year to the average family of five, the small landholder would pay 8s 4d only on an unimproved value of . £IOO, 16s 8d on £2OO, 25s on £3OO, 33s 4d on £4OO, 41s 8d on £SOO, and 75s only oven on an unimproved value of £9OO. Tho difference, of course, would bo made up by the big landholders, who have benefited most by the vast increase in land values during the past twenty years. They would have to pay more. And why not? They can well afford it- And, after all. to require them* to pay an additional penny in the £ on land values, would not be to take from them ono pennypiece of their individual earnings. It would simply be calling upon them to hand over to the public another small fraction of tho public earnings that they are now, and havo so long been, pocketing.

WANTED: A GENERAL STRIKE AT THE' BALLOT-BOX AGAINST TEE HIGH COST OP LIVING. ‘"Labour must go forward' is the decision of the Auckland Carters' Union. At a special meeting held last night (says the ‘N.Z. Herald,' October 3rd, 1011), the question of affiliating with the Miners' Federation, which has adopted the title of ‘The Now Zealand Federallion of Labour/ and which preaches the general strike as a solution of labour troubles, was discussed at length. A number of members who had been through the industrial troubles of the 'oo’s recounted their experience of strikes, and one and all advised members to stack to arbitration until something better was propounded. The motion to endorse the strike policy by affiliation with the Minors' Federation was lost by 160 votes to 14. It is stated that a determined effort is being made to capture the Carters' Union, and the decision of the union can bo regarded as a distinct sort-back to the advocates of the strike policy." The “general strike," as advocated by ‘‘The New Zealand Federation of Labour," is, of course, no solution of labour problems. As Air Holman, the Labour Attorney-General for New* South Wales, pointed out when he was over here some months ago, a general strike ennnot succeed unless the strikers arc in a majority; and, if they are in a majority, there are much better ways of achieving their objects. *We are clad, therefore, that the Auckland Carters' Union has refused to allow itself to ..bo captured for this fatuous policy. What, is wanted is not a general industrial strike, but a general strike of the workers at the ballot-box against privilege and monopoly and the consequent high cost of living. What is wanted, in short, is a strike at the ballot-box for another Id in the £ on land values and another .£500,000 a year of Customs taxes off

food and off necessaries not produced in New Zealand.

Tho Id in the £ on land values would not merely provide tho revenue to reader possible this reduction of Customs taxes. It would not only enable us to reduce the coat of living by <£3 15s per year for the average family of five, but, like tho land tax of 1891,. imposed by tho lion. John Baliance, it would tend to force idle land into use, thus at one and the same time reducing rents and greatly increasing the demand for labour, and so securing for the workers both

LOWER PRICES AND LOWER RENTS AND HIGHER WAGES.

“Labour must go forward,” and it cannot possibly do better than go forward on the lines indicated above. Let tho workers of Nmw Zealand, therefore, rally for a general strike at the ballotbox in favour of the next step on the Liberal-Labour lino of advance pointed out a score of years ago by John Ballauco and Sir George Grey. The results of tho past twenty years have more than justified the policy they then inaugurated, and the next step is now duo —aye, overdue. ‘

ARTHUR WITHY