RATING ON UNIMPROVED VALUE.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXIX, Issue 8224, 30 August 1906, Page 5

RATING ON UNIMPROVED VALUE.

(To the Editor). Sir,—As tbe day is approaching when the ratepayers of the Mtwfcerton County will have an opportunity of expressing, through the ballotbox, their views as to the mode of ratios whiuh is the more denirnble, I bhould like to give an opinion on this (to the email settlor) njosf; important matter. I think the settlers in the back-blocks will havo realized loug ere this the deep interest that Mr Hogg, takes in their welfare. Those who advocate the* rating on capital value don't expose the weak point in their armour. I have had about twenty years experience of this, and havo all deaired for a change. Some years ago a poll was taken on this same subject, bnt it was not carried. When I entered upon the laud in Te Wbiti, which I farmed for about 20 years, my first payment iu rates was a few shillings over £6. My last payment; was about £3O. What was tbe cause of this inoreaae. Well it was ti: thing more or loss thau the improvements made thereon by the nard toil of myself and jjfamily. Every acre I cleared of stumps and fitted for tbe plough cost me an increase of £4 per acre to the capital value. Every building I erected was also noted by the lyux eyed valuator on his biennial or triennial visit. I maintain that a man's improvements ought not to be so taxed; it is a premium on the sweat of hia biow, and I am satisfied that if the smalt settler is alive to his' own interests he will vote against the antiquated method of rating 'on capital value, and go iu for the unimproved value. On polling day I shall support these views at the bal-lot-box, unci would say to one and all, go thou and do likewise. —J. am, etc., PETER GORDON, Eden Villa, South Road, , Mastei'fcon, August 28tb, 1906.

(To the Editor) Sir, —In view of the poll to be taken on Saturday having for its objeot to make a drastic change in the principle of levyiag rates for the maintenance of the Oonnty roads, ratepayers will do well to pause before they oommit themselves by their votes to a change that cannot fail to bring results the reverse of those fchey are [insidiously being led to anticipate. The unimproved valuations of land being considerably less, or lower, than the capital value, the alluring bait [dangled before the Junwaiy ratepayer is, that with the rates levied on the unimDroved valuations of his land, he stands to pay a smaller amount than he would on the capital value. The County Council in order to maintain the roads in good repair must have the|requi9ite amount of money for the purpose, and whether it is levied on the capital or upon the unimproved value, will not affect the amount to be collected. But while the capital values of land are easily arrived at, and In most cases are approximately fairly assessed, the unimproved values are on the other hand computed by euch an arbitrary process, that th 9 bona fldo value of the land in its quondam unimproved state is absolutely ignored, and the owner is entirely at the mercy of the land valuer, whose valuations stand to be raised with each succeeding valuation in proportion to the improvements effected in the interim. The change sought to be made in the incidence of the rating, is not for the purpose of relieving the small Rettler, as has been so industriously represented, but for the ulterior political purpose of riveting upon his neok, in common with all land owners, the whole burden of taxation.—l am, etc., ARGUS.