LAND AND LABOUR

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7978, 8 December 1911, Page 5

LAND AND LABOUR

HOW TO REDUCE THE COST OE

LIVING.

WITHOUT REDUCING WAGES,

[This column, weekly set aside foi the discussion of land and labour problems, is edited by Mr Arthur Withy, general secretary of the New Zealand Land Values League, with whom alone rests responsibility foi the opinions expressed therein.]

Elector: So you consider that it is possible to reduce the cost of living —to reduce rents and prices—without reducing wages.

Laud Reformer: Certainly, I db. Elector: Rut wouldn't it be necessary to have a royal commission first, to inquire into the causes or and find the remedy for the increased .cost of living? Laud Reformer. No; a royal commission is not necessary. To set ono up would only bo a waste of time and money, Seven years ago Mr Edward Tregear, late secretary oi the New Zealand Labour Department, showed in his report of 1901 on tho Arbitration and Conciliation Act, that "EXCESSIVE RENT IS THE CHIEF DEVOUREDof the wages of the worker, and of the profits of the tradesman." lie showed that "there is a third hand in the game besides tho employer and the employee, and that this third man, the non-produc-ing ground of city and suburban sites, alone will rise a winner in the end." And the Right Hon. R. J. Stddon, shortly before lus death, told the Australian Labour League, at Sydney, that "Our Labour Legislation in New Zealand has, so tar, benefited one class, and one class only—the landowners." Elector: Is that so?

Land Reformer; Yes; Mr Tregear’s report is well worth reading. And you should also read the verbatim report of the Hon. George Fowlds’ speech at Grey Lynn at the opening of the present campaign, If you haven't seen a copy I will gladly send you one. Elector: Many thanks, do so. I will certainly read it. Land Reformer; You will find that Mr Fowlds shows that while our public debt in New Zealand has increased by some £42,000,000 since IBal, land values have increased by over £126,000,000. The fortytwo millions of debt have been mostly spent on public works, all of which send up the value of the land. ‘Who gets the debt? The people! Who gets increased land values? The people? Yes — the people who monopolise the land. Mr Fowlds shows that considerably more than £100,000,000 of this largo sum, this £126,000,000 of "unearned increment" —or "community-created increment," as 4 he rightly prefers to call it—has gone into the pockets of the large landowners of : New Zealand. | Elector: You don't say so? *

A LANDLORD TRIBUTE OF £Bl PER FAMILY.

Mr Withy: Yes; you’ll find that his - facta and figures are unanswerable. He shows that, "taking the population as a million for each of these nineteen years (though in 1891 it was only 634,058), .... I for ©very man, woman, and child in New Zealand, the sum of over £6 10s per an- ; uum has been added to tho unimproved | country," and "that means £32 10s per annum for every family of five persons •—father, mother, and three children." He estimates that at 5 per cent, the annual value of the-privately-owned land in New Zealand is £9,703,618 —i.e., "£9 14s per head per annum or £4B 10s for every family of five people," which, added to the £32 10s per family contributed yearly to the "unearned increment, "means that the working heads of every family of five people in New Zealand (including the landlords, many of whom do nothing but spend), have each-.to create by their labour an annual value of £Bl, which is handed over to the landlords before they begin to receive anything to buy food and clothing for them* selves, their wives, and their children.' Well may Mr Fowlds exclaim: "Do you wonder that wages are low? _ Bo you wonder that the cost of living is high? Elector: Why, even if we take the average wage os £l6O a year, and that is far too high for the average as things go, it means that for every two days the worker puts in, he works ode day for the landlord and one only for himself! But what are Mr Fowlds' proposals for removing this state of affairs? SOME PRACTICAL REMEDIES.

Land Reformer: Mr Fowlds proposes: 1. To make the landlord tribute takers pay more by putting an additional tax of Id in the £ on land values. 2. To use the revenue thus raised, to reduce the cost of living, by abolishing all taxes on food and reducing the Customs taxes on necessaries not produced in New Zealand—or, and in this I also agree with him, to ns© half the revenue in this way and apply tho other half to the reduction of railway freights, thus benefiting the towns folk with cheaper food and the country people with cheaper goods. , , S. To reduce house rents by abolishing the rates now levied upon the homes of the people; and , 4. To raise, wages by abolishing' the rates now levied on the trade and industry of the people, i.e., on shops, factories, mills, warehouses, farm improvements, etc., thus encouraging trade and industry, and so causing a bigger demand for labour and sending up wages. Only on such lines can we reduce the cost of living, not only without reducing wages, hut while increasing wages. Elector: That sounds practicable enough. ~' , Land Reformer: It is immediately practicable. s There is no need whatever to set up a royal commission, and wait months and months for a report which, ten to one, would be worth nothing when we had got it. ~ , Elector: Yes: they never tell us much that we don't know quit© well already. A GAIN OF 93s 9d PER FAMILY. - Land Reformer: Mr Fowlds shows that the additional Id in the £ on the "unearned increment" would yield £626,848 per annum, and. that "if we remitted a similar amount of Customs duty, that would enable us to reduce taxation to the extent of 12s 6d per head of the population, which, with wholesale and retail profit on tho duty, would moan a remission of 18s 9d- per head, or £4 13s 9d per family of five"; and, he adds, "after taking that amount by way of additional land tax we could continue to give the landlords an annual present of .over £6,000,000 a year, besides maintaining the capital value of their land, if we maintain the same rate of increase in land values that we have done during, the last nineteen years. Surely the landlords can have no reason to complain. Elector: Complain? No, indeed! They could consider themselves lucky to get off so easily. Always provided that IT WONT HURT THE SMALL HOLDERS, X don’t see why every elector should not support those proposals. Land Reformer: You may be quite easy in your mind about the small landowners. Mr Fowlds’ proposals, in spite of Mr Massey's _ repeated assertions to the contrary, will greatly reduce the taxes paid by all small landowners, while increasing the taxes paid by the big landmonopolists. Elector: Is that so? Land Reformer: Yes; Mr Fowlds proves it conclusively from Return B 17 A, 1907. He shows that in 1906 there were 96.372 landowners under £SOO unimproved value, and that the average- unimproved value of their land was £135. So that, "at Id in the £ they wonld pay on an average 11s 3d each and get a. remission of 93« 9d per family," That is to say the average SMALL HOLDER. WILL FAY 11s 3d TO GAIN 93s 9d. On the other hand, however, there were 31.647 owners above £SOO unimproved value, and these averaged .£2753 each, "which at Id -in- the £, would amount to £ll 9s 5d each." This, as Mr Fowlds

said, "is certainly in excess of 93s 9d a year they would receive in Customs remission; but when we consider that they have been receiving, and will continue to receive, the lion’s share of that annual gift of .£6,664,482 (of "unearned increment”), we need not shed many tears over their sad, unhappy lot." Blcctor: 1 shall certainly shed none! Land Iteformer: 1 should think not. The big landowners can well alford to pay mure, and they ought to pay more. The "unearned increment" so-called, is really the earnings of the public as a whole, and is tnerefore the just and proper source of public revenue. But out of a total national tax revenue of ,£4,250.000 a year only .£630,000 from this "unearned increment —this •'community-created increment,” while <£3,620,000 is taken from individual earnings. And even if Mr Eowlds’ proposals are adopted, as I trust they soon will be, some <£3,000,000 will still com© from individual earnings and little more than 4*1,250,000 from the earnings of the public as a whole., . Elector: That is so. That is so. Laud Reformer; Mr Eowlds' proposals, therefore, are certainly not estravageut. If they err at all, it is on the side ot moderation. a , Elector: That is so. But it is a good fault, if fault it be. And you can count me with you, anyhow. No rates on homes, and lower rents. No taxes on food, and cheaper food. Lower taxes on necessaries, and cheaper necessaries ol life. Lower railway freights, and cheaper food for the towns folk and cheaper goods for the farmers. No rates on shops, lactones, mills, and warehouses, therefore more employment, cheaper goods, and higher wages. That is- a programme that suits me to a "T.” There s my hand on Land. Reformer: I thought you d catch on when once you understood it. Elector: Rather I So long.Land Reformer: So long. ARTHUR WITHY.