The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, AUGUST 20, 1889. PUBLIC OPINION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1932, 20 August 1889, Page 2

The Temuka Leader TUESDAY, AUGUST 20, 1889. PUBLIC OPINION.

The result of the debate on the property tax is really discouraging. We do not at all regret that the property tax has been retained, because it is doubtful whether any tax by which it could be substituted would yield an equal amount of revenue without pressing more harshly on the payers of it. A land tax is certainly a fair and reasonable tax, but under existing circumstances we doubt whether it is suitable to the condition of the colony, whilst all parties seem; to agree that it would not yield the! necessary amount of revenue. The, point on which we cannot agree with| a land tax is this: The great majority: of the ostensible landowners do not own the land. They are really not much better than managers for moneylenders, and the question is: Would; they have to pay the tax on property which they do not own?. If they, would, then a land tax must Jbe condemned as iniquitous, because it is far worse to tax one man for property which he does not own than tax one thousand persons for property from which they derive full benefit. This ia a question which must be settled before we can accept a land tax as equitable. If the mortgaged land-, owners would get exemptions to the amount of their mortgages, and the burden were thrown on the shoulders of the mortgagees, then by all means let us have a laud tax. But if the poor, uufor,

tunate slaves of the money-rings are to be made to pay taxation while their relentless taskmasters escape scot free, then such an arrangement would be iniquitous. It may be said that the money-lenders would be caught by imposing an income tax on them. Of course this is possible, but we doubt whether they could be got at so well as at present. An income tax is in our opinion not suitable* to the condition of the colony. Yery few have any fixed incomes, the means of living in most eases are precarious, and under such circumstances an income tax cannot be looked forward to as a means of raising much revenue. And revenue we must have. The old system of carrying on with borrowed money cannot be continued, we must tax ourselves to pay our way, unless we mean to go deliberately into the bankruptcy court with our eyes

open. The principal reason why so many are in fayor of a land tax and against the property tax is that it is hoped the one would compel large landowners to sell their estates, while the abolition of the other would relieve industry, and thus give an impetus to the development of our resources., These objects would be gained more readily and.more efficaciously,by facing them in a direct way by special legislation. Let estates over a certain area be specially taxed, and let capital invested industrially be relieved from the burden of taxation, and the objects sought are at once attained. In this way mortgaged farmers will not be placed under the hardship of paying for lands which they do not.own. Our purport, however, is not to deal with the question at any, great length. What we find discouraging is that many whoTavor the abolition of the property tax voted for retaining it, because of their desire to retain the Atkinson' Ministry in office, while supporters of the property tax voted with the Opposition because they wished to turn the Government out. This'denotes a painfully chaotic state of politics, and so long as parties are in such a disorganised state proper government is ‘ impossible. Let* Sir Harry Atkinson and his ministers be the purest,' the noblest, and the wisest legislators that ever lived, they cannot carry bn without loyal support. The fact that the members change sides so of ten would demoralise any government, and we honestly believe that to this is due a great many evils of which we complain.' Why should a candidate, put himself forward as in favor of a land tax, and at the same time declare himself a follower ■. of Sir Harry Atkinson, whose only consistency is adherence to the property tax ?' The issue is a vital one, and he can under no circumstance 1 perform his duties without breaking his pledges. The same thing happened to the Sfcout-Yogel Ministry ; they were kept in office by Freetraders, who flung thdir protective proposals back in their teeth. Hottest government is impossible under these circumstances, If parliament is to be tahep asi a reflex of public opinion, then all we can say is that public opinion is in a very unhealthy state’in this colony. In,,England there is a public opinion. One side is led by, Mr Gladstone j the other by Lord Salisbury, and the candidate is not elected because of his own merit so : much as because of the popularity.of the ,party of which he declares himself a follower. This is exactly wbat we,want in this colony, and until we have it we cannot have any strong Government. We ought to know from the leader of the party his exact programme when he starts on his electioneering tour, and we ought to accept or reject that programme by electing, candidates; for l or against • it, and’ members; departing from these linos ought to be relegated t 6 obscurity: There is very little hope of this however, and consequently we ! must as, heretofore'put up with weak, vacillat-| ing incompetent, Goverttments as Well 1 as.a considerable amount of corruption. It is, all: the fault of the people. * They elect parliament; its members are their creatures, and if they are not able to . select suitable • candidates then they: must not complain.