The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, JANUARY 27, 1916. TAXATION AND THE WAR

New Zealand Times, Volume XLI, Issue 9258, 27 January 1916, Page 4

The New Zealand Times. THURSDAY, JANUARY 27, 1916. TAXATION AND THE WAR

While Mr Sonar Law’s statement in the House of Commons that the Government is thinking hard about tho co-ordination of all the financial resources of the Empire to see tho war through with united effort, reads vvelh it would be far more edifying if the circumstances of the case showed it te. b a anything more than a mere pious platitude on the lips or tho leader of the Tory party—the Landlord party—in the House of Commons. It would be much more reassuring, too, but for the fact that, all the conditions considered, it seems very like a case of tho Tory leader protesting his willingness to “shed the last drop of his brother s blood.” or spend the last penny in bis brother’s purse in defence ot the Empire. ~ It is in much the same spirit that our Tory Lender in New Zealand repeatedly professed his intention of putting the war taxes on those best able to pay, hut when it carao to the point very carefully omitted to take a wax profits census at the same time that he took the war census of the man-power of New Zealand. and also very carefully forgot all about the 28 millions sterling of “unearned increment” reaped in the past sis years by, New Zealand’s upper sis thousand, tho 6738 payers ot graduated land tax. One can begin to believe in the sincerity of Mr Massey’s talk about taxation according to ability to pay when he adds something more than a paltry £67.000 or so a year to the land taxation paid by our six thousand and odd big land monopolists who are to-day in a position to draw from the pockets of tho people of New Zealand a rental of nearly a million and a-half sterling more per year than they could six short years ago. In the same "way, one can begin to believe that the British Government is in' dead earnest and means business about co-ordinat-ing the finances of the country and the Empire, and making the, best use of the resources of the country, when one finds the British Government making any real attempt to make the big landholders pay their fair share of taxation and to break down the land monopoly, which, even in this time of stress and strain, holds more than one-third of the land of the United Kingdom idle for “sport.” If that land monopoly were broken down, there would he no need for Lord Derby, after complimenting very highly—though no more highly than they deserve—the men who - are fighting for their country, to add in the very next breath (surely with tongue in cheek!) that after the war land must ‘bo found for these men in Australia, Canada, South Africa, or New Zealand—anywhere, in short, except at Home I Lord Derby went on to say that these men could always be relied upon in case of necessity to fight for their country again- “They can come hack when tne country needs them,” he said. That is as it may be. No doubt his faith in their loyalty is justified, but we trust that his belief in their Stupidity will, when once the war is over, receive a rude shock. It will, indeed, be surprising if, after the war is over, the men who have fought for their country tamely consent to be exiled overseas by Lord Derby, Sir Rider Haggard, Mr Bonar Law, and the rest of the good old crusted Tories of tho Motherjand. Their rifles are speaking for their country now; their ballots, surely, will speak with no less certain sound when once they are home again. Onr New Zealand land tax is, all things considered, ridiculously small. But, while as against our unimproved land value of rather more than 200 millions sterling, or rental value of ten millions a year, the unimproved rental value of the United Kingdom is from 300 to 400 millions per annum, the British land tax is not only relatively lower but absolutely lower than ours. It yields, in fact, less than £750,000 a year! This, in spite of the fact that originally the land at Home bore the whole of tho expenses of the State, the defence of the country, by both Army and Navy, being a first charge upon the land. But the big landholders gradually exempted themselves from these “feudal due# and services” as they were called, and shouldered off the burdens of State on to the people at large, besides enclosing as their own private property tho greater part of the common lands. Well might Richard Cobden say that if tho British land laws were shown to a visitor from another planet, he would at once exclaim, “ Behold, a code of laws made by landlords for landlords.” Well might Richard Cobden, in the course of his great campaign against tho Corn Laws, “warn the landlords and the aristocracy of the Country against forcing on the attention of the middle and industrial classes the subject ot taxation.” Well might he declare, “Mighty as I consider the fraud and injustice of tho Cora Laws, I verily believe, if yon were to bring forward

the history of taxation in this country for the last 150 years, you will find as black a record against the landowners as oven in tho Corn Law itself.” This war and tie huge expenditure that it entails cannot but “force on the attention of the. middle and industrial classes ” of the United Kingdom, “ the subject of taxation.” If they would not have , trade and industry practically throttled I by heavy war taxation, they will be compelled to study, both in its economic and in its historical aspects, the question of taxation. And when they study this question they will do well to “read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest” the speeches made on this subject by Richard Cobden some seventy years ago, speeches far more te the point and far more radical than any vet delivered even by Lloyd Georgo himself. Going back a good deal moro than 150 vears, Rachard Cobden, speak, ing in tho House of Commons in March, 1842, showed how for a period of 150 years after the Norman Conquest, the whole of the revenue of England was derived from the land; that for tho next 150 years, the land yielded nine-teen-twentieths of the revenue, and for the next century, down to the reign of Richard HI., nine-tenths; how during the next 70 years to the time of Mary the land revenue fell to about throefourths ; how from that time te the end of the Commonwealth the land yielded one-half the revenue; and so on, “becoming small by degrees and beautifully less” till at the date of his speech “one twenty-fifth only of the revenue was derived frPm.the land.” “This,’ 1 said Cobden with fine scorn, “the. land, which anciently paid the whole of taxa-' tion, paid now only a fraction or one twenty-fifth, notwithstanding the immense increase that had taken place in the value of the rentals. The people had fared better under the despotic monarths (such as William the Conqueror) than wjieu the powers of the State had fallen into the hands of a landed oligarchy, who had first exempted themselves from taxation, and next claimed compensation for 'themselves by a Com Law”—-by a tax on tho people’s bread—“for their heavy and peculiar burdens!” Tho British National Government has added 16 millions sterling to tho ‘‘breakfast table ’duties” to pay for the war. But Richard Oobden at Derby in, 1841, declared that the land should be revalued and that the old land tax of 4s in the £, which now brings in less than threequarters of one million, should, be levied on the thou true yearly value of the land; that it should then have yielded some 20 millions sterling; and that all the food taxes should at once be abolished. When once the war is Sver the subject of taxation will force itself upon the attention of the middle and industrial classes of England. Let them hut study the subject thoroughly', let them but road what Cobden had to say on the question, then we shall see what we shall see Then, by a stiff land tax, those who hav© fought for their country will, to Use Lloyd George’s phrase, “open up to the people and to the children of the people the inheritance given them from oh High.”