Untitled

Waikato Argus, Volume XXVI, Issue 4079, 28 April 1909, Page 2

Complaints have been chronic for some years that the Government total valuation of land has been generally excessive, and that the value of improvements has generally been belo v the mark, thus making the taxable value of land excessive. A Gisborne contemporary recently called attention to a specific case, which certainly, so far as one case can do, proves the statement up to the hilt. According to this paper, an old settler some eight years back purchased the interest of another settler in 2000 acres of land in the Motu district, and subsequently secured the freehold from the Crown. The property is a back block section, which three years ago was valued by the Government at £3900; last year their valuation was raised to £10,570. Our contemporary, in commenting upon the above figures, writes: “If the productive capacity had advanced in the meantime, there wuiild be no cause for complaint, for, by reason of increased revenue, the farmer would be able to pay the additional rates without trouble, but nothing of the kind has happened. Except that some additional land has been cleared and made available for feeding stock, its earning power has not been increased. Indeed, as a set-off against any increased acreage for sheep grazing must bo mentioned the very great reduction in the price of wool and mutton. Three years ago Peter Wright could look confidently for 9d or lOd per lb for his bales of wool; today he counts himself lucky if he can get Gd. Three years ago he had a fairly ready sale for both wethers and ewes; today they are a drug in the market, which will take nothing but fat lambs, and these he cannot get to a market because the Government has failed to supply him with the means of transport. It still costs him £8 or £9 per ton in the winter to get his houusehold provisions, his horse feed, and his fencing wire up to the Motu, and a large proportion of the small returns for his produce is still eaten up by the enormous cost of transport; yet he is asked to pay three times the amount of taxes that were exacted from him three years ago.”

It must be noted that the unimproved value, which is the taxable value, has jumped from £2OOO to £4990. It is stated that in addition to the unimproved value, £3OOO has been added for standing timber, svhich for want of means of communication, cannot possibly bo got to market. As a test of the accuracy of the Government valuer, it may be stated that Mr Wright has put the property in the market at £SOO less than the valuation, but has failed to secure a buyer. Statistics published by the Registrar-General go to substantiate the charge of over-valuation. A table contained in the volume gives the capital value of the land in the two islands for the years 1901 to 1908 as follows: North Island, in 1891, £37,441,115; in 1908, £149,783,914; increase, £92,342,799. South Island, 1891, £64.783,914; 1908, £103,656,238, an increase of £38,872,344 a total increase of £131,215,143 during the seventeen years specified. Those who only glide over the surface of facts will tell us that it is a thing to be proud of and gratified that land has so largely increased in nomina; value. In fact, however, of high price of land, in a new country particularly, restricts production. It does so for the reason that when a man has paid this high price for his land, his (shrunken capital which is left curtails; his power to improve and crop his holding, be it large or small. This being ihe case, it is bad policy on the part of a Government to take a part in forcing up prices. The greater the proportion of yield to the nominal value of land the better for any country.