The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 1923. MINIMUM AND RATE.

Southland Times, Issue 18930, 2 May 1923, Page 4

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. WEDNESDAY, MAY 2, 1923. MINIMUM AND RATE.

Mr A. W. Rodger has replied at length to the letters of two correspondents who seem to adopt the view that the policy of a high minimum charge to country consumers and a low, or no rate, is not as sound as the alternative adopted by the Board: A low minimum and a high rate. Mr Rodger has made it quite clear that the alternative adopted by the Board in variation of the original scheme accepted by the country gives the non-ratepaying consumer immense advantage over the ratepayer, and he has made it clear that the country in this matter is morally bound by the contract it accepted when it approved of the loan on the basis of a high minimum. It has been suggested that the original scheme entirely eliminated the country consumer, who could not take current to the value of £l5, but that statement is not correct. Even the small man who could not absorb more than £3 worth of current in a year was not irrevocably shut out; but that was not the same as culling down the minimum and letting the bigger man take a £3 contract as well. This question of rates and the minimum will play some part in the election, and it is as well for ratepayers in the country to understand what the question involves. Mr Rodger has put forward some powerful arguments in support of the higher minimum, but we propose to reduce the question to figures, and to show the effects of the two proposals in different cases. The late chairman of the Board accepted the statement that with the low minimum, allowing the Board an average consumption of £6, the deficit on the whole scheme would be over £90,000. Other estimates placed it as high as £115,000. We take the lower figure as being more favourable. Then in his original scheme Mr Rodger anticipated a deficit of £12,000 in the first year. That we will call £15,000. These sums are put forward as bases and not as forecasts of the actual position in regard to the balance as between revenue and expenditure, but in the following table we will show approximately the rates payable on properties of certain values under three headings : the provision of the whole of the annual rates, of the £90,000 deficit under the low minimum, and of the £15,000 deficit under the high minimum: Assessable Value of £lBO,OOO £ 90,000 £15,000 Property 3d rats rate %d rate £ £ s d £ s d £ b d £5OO 650 326 10 5 £lOOO 12 10 0 6 5 0 1 0 10 £l5OO 18 15 0 9 7 6 1 11 3 £2OOO 25 0 0 12 10 0 2 1 8 £2500 31 5 0 15 12 6 2 12 1 £3OOO 37 10 0 18 15 0 8 3 9 £3300 ..*.... 43 15 0 27 17 6 3 18 9 £4OOO 50 0 0 25 0 0 4 3 4 £5OOO 62 10 0 31 5 0 5 4 2 Now the ratepayer with property valued at £5OO may not be able to take any current at all, and under the £3 scheme he will pay £3 2s 6d in rates for nothing; under the high minimum, he will pay 10s sd. If he takes current to the value of £3 under the Board’s low minimum it will actually cost him £6 2s 6d. The man on the £2OOO mark who takes £3 worth of

current under the low minimum will pay £l5 10s for it, and if he requires £lO of current under that minimum, must be prepared to find annually for that service £22 10s. If the £2O minimum is applied and he takes that quantity, then his total payment is £22 Is Bd. The man who has a property assessed at £5OOO would pay £34 ss. for £3 worth of current under the low minimum and £5 5s for £2O worth of current. On the high minimum system his annual payment for £2O worth of current, allowing for a deficit of £15,000, would be £25 4s 2d. In all cases the consumer who is not a ratepayer must reap an enormous advantage where the minimum is low and the rate is high. Our figures are rough approximations, but they are used to illustrate the effects of the two systems and to show the country consumer how the low minimum actually puts him at a disadvantage. On the town v country argument, which one correspondent has raised, we need only remind our readers that people in Invercargill who pay rates on a quarter of an acre, get no return from that property as a farmer does from his farm. A section in the central ward with an unimproved value of £BOO pays over £3O in rates and gives no return. That ratepayer probably takes current to the cost of £6 and cannot possibly utilise power in large quantities. The farmer on property valued at £BOO unimproved is getting a return from his land and from the current that he purchases under the high minimum. If our country friend will compare the rates paid by the town and country and take into account the direct return from the property being rated and the value of the service the Board is going to give, he will soon see that this town v country argument, so far as the Monowai scheme is concerned, has an insecure basis and is not worthy of the importance given it. It seems to us that the benefits under the low minimum are fallacious and that scheme puts the country in the position of a man who has gone back on his word.