The Opunake Times FRIDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1894. HOW TO NATIONALISE GROUND RENT.

Opunake Times, Volume I, Issue 28, 5 October 1894, Page 2

The Opunake Times FRIDAY, OCTOBER 5, 1894. HOW TO NATIONALISE GROUND RENT.

“ How to Nationalise Ground Rent and Introduce the Single Tax by State Purchase,” is the title of a pamphlet issued by the Ground Rent Revenue League of New Zealand, a copy of which has been forwarded to us for criticism. The pamphlet is very ably written and contains food for sei ions thought, but there are several elements in it which are not at all in accord with theide as of landholders. We are aware that this is not a fault in the proposal from the standpoint of the League, but .as every individual who becomes a land owner is suro to get imbued with a contrary idea to the League, very strenuous opposition to its aims may be anticipated. Previously the members of the League were apparently Single Taxers, who looked forward to the nationalisation of the land by taxing the present owners out of it. This treatment, if applied to any other form of wealth, would be termed spoliation, but the supporters of the system are plea-el to overlook this, and hence they call it a “ Single Tax.” “ Give me a freehold ” may be sentiment, and, from a commercial

Standpoint, cannot hold its own against somp of the latter-day, tenures, but sentin;nt r ut, or no it is what puis a backbone in lp ; a country. In referring tp freeholder pamphlet says: “ Many of these have made great sacrifices to buy laud—not for the sake of obtaining an income from others by becoming their landlords, nor by selling, but —because purchase afforded their only chance of working without restriction or dictation, and of retaining the proceeds of their industry. These owners, in common with the landlord and speculator-, have received with great alarm our earlier proposal that the State should resume the ground rent, by gradually increasing the taxation upon it. Rapidly as our views are spreading over the world, this fear has always been its greatest hindrance.” They have evidently a clear idea of the opposition views, and by the alteration proposed in the present system tacitly admit that they were aiming at inflicting an injustice. Their proposal no-w is that the Government should resume proprietorship of the whole lands,of the colony, town and country. As a basis or starting point, they take the valuation of 1891, which.gives the unimproved value of all, lands in the.colony at, in round numbers, seventy-six millions. They fix upon five per cent as an equitable rate of interest, and the amount of ground root- receivable by the BuGs would therefore bo three aatl three-quarter millions. All these lands have been acquired from the State at a cost of £13,373,000 ; therefore the accrued unearned increment, owing to increase of population and public works to these holders, is 63 millions. The argument implied is that had the State retained the ownership of these lauds in fee simple, the increased ground rent which this unearned increment would represent would be sufficient to meet all the demands on the revenue of the colony, thus doing away with all other forms of taxation. The argument as applied to the future also is that this land will keep on increasing in value—it may be in a lesser ratio —but that the rent derivable from such increase will take the place of other taxation. . Their desire, as expressed, is “to secure this fund from its present owners and to transfer it to the State, in order that it maybo used as the only revenue for colonial and local purposes. We do so in the belief that if this were done every individual would receive and pay proportionately for the benefits arising from association. He who elected to live at the centre of the community ■would receive more benefits and pay more ground rent than he who ivas content to live at the circumference. In either location each would then retain, as his own, the whole produce arising from his industry. If he had inany wants, ho would work hard. If Ills desires were few, he would take it easy.” In order to bring about the reform they propose that every owner of unencumbered land should receive debentures to the amount of the unimproved value of his land. He may still remain in occupation of it, paying five per cent for it, and receiving five per cent from the State on his debentures, so that his position would remain unchanged until a fresh valuation were made, and then if the valuation were higher he would pay more than his debentures produced. In this case.the profit goes to the Slate. If the land is mortgaged the owner re-

ceivcs debentures for the amount in excess of the mortgage assessed on tbe unimproved value. Every mortgagee is to receive debentures for his debt so long as it does not exceed the unimproved value. If he have lent on improvements as well then he must suffer the loss of this amount. If there are not 30 per cent of improvements on unimproved value effected their debentures shall remain in the custody of the Tax Department as security for ground rent until that proportion is ready up. In ihe ease of city property where buildings represent a large shero of the total value on which money is lent this will be very pleasing, wo should imagine, to mortgagees. These debentures may be disposed of in any manner the holder thinks lit, but the Government are to have the right to redeem them at par at any time. The title to occupy land shall continue to beheld, transferred, and bequeathed iu the same way as at present. We cannot deal with the whole subject in this article, but will give some more of the aalient points in a future issue.