CONFUSION OF THOUGHT.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LXI, Issue 144198, 15 September 1913, Page 2

CONFUSION OF THOUGHT.

Commenting upon the new Land Bill, the Lyttelton Times says:—“Some confusion of thought exists oven among tho Government’s supporters regarding tho Reform method of computing tho selling price of tho people's land, but the process really is quite simple. Mr. Massey, who might have been expected to represent tho interests of tho community in general when ho began to handle tho public estate has appointed himself tho agent of tho tenants and has arranged terms of tho kind a very optimistic lessee might hav.o sketched for himself in a pleasant day-dream. The tenant is to have the freehold now or whenever ho wants it, tho owners of tho land, who are tho people of the Dominion, not being consulted about the date of the purchase. Ho is to have full possession of the holding immediately ho buys, thus securing to himself tho benefit of all future increases in value, but ho is not to pay tho people what their land is worth. He is to pay the original value, which may be loss than half tho actual value, plus what remains of the increment value (present value minus original value) after ho has borrowed the sum, on paper, from the people for tho remaining period of his lease and charged the people interest on it at tho rate of 5 per cent. If the tenant’s land was worth £SOO when the lease was taken up in 1901, it is worth £BOO now after deducting tho tenant’s own improvements and will bo worth £I2OO when the lease terminates in 1981. Tho purchase price to-day will bo about £6OO. Clearly the individnals who are getting tho people’s land on those terms ought to ho very, very grateful'to Mr. Massey.” Our contera-porary’s-roraarks are not likely to dispel any “confusion of thought” which* may exist, because it ignores the leases-in-porpotuity, which‘secure to the holder all the Increment of value for nearly ■ ten centuries, the State having parted with aU its interesßin the land for 999; years at what may 'bo-a merely nominal rental before nine years of that period have passed. Presumably the Times has no criticism to offer regarding tlic proposal to let the tenant have the freehold, because i ho'-State will ho infinitely better off with tho money than with the reversion to tho land. about, a thousand years hence. Even in dealing with renewable leases our contemporary’s remarks aro likely to make confusion of thought more confounded. Are there any renewable leases terminating in 193-1? Wo think not, for that tenure was not granted till long after 1901. Passing that ewer, however, how can it be said that it land was worth £SOO in 1901, it is worth £BOO now, and will bo forth £I2OO in 1934. Surely this is rather confusing. No one can toll what laud will bo worth in 1934. It may be more or it may ho loss than at present. It is, however, possible to calculate what £SOO will grow to in a given term of years at a given rate of interest, and it is probably an even chance that tho State will bo just as well off with tho money realised by tho sale of theso renewable leaseholds as it would bo if it continued to retain tlio freehold.