Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price 1d. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3, 1887. Graduated Robbery.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume XX, Issue 3000, 3 August 1887, Page 2

Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price Id. WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3, 1887. Graduated Robbery.

In a previous article we asserted that the proposed Graduated Land Tax was simply a specious attempt at con* iiscation ; we might truly have termed it “ graduated robbery under a finesounding name.” The hypothesis on which the propounders of such a tax base their arguments is this : Certain persons some years ago obtained land from the State at a cheap rate—not too cheap a rate then, but at too cheap a rate when compared with values now —and as the bargain has turned out too favorably to the purchaser the State should now undo that bargain. This is the real contention of those who would heavily tax land, divested of those subterfuges and quibblings beneath which they attempt to conceal their true designs, for it matters little in the end whether the State commits robbery out and out, by seizing the land, or whether it heaps taxation upon it until it becomes no longer tenable by the owner. It matters ultimately very little to a man whether you burn his house over his head, or whether yon pick his dwelling to pieces stone by stone, brick by brick — be will be in the cold sooner or later.

To discover the justice or injustice of any abstract proposition, it is only necessary to argue it out to its logical termination. On what grounds then are wo justified in placing heavy taxa* tiou upon large holdings of land ? For the good of the people we are told—for the benefit of those who have not so much land. Suppose, then it be, for the argument’s sake, admitted that say 50,000 acres is too much land for any one man to hold, what amount of land is one man justified in bolding, 5000 acres ? But, as we have before pointed out, the man with only 5000 acres may say, “ No, 5000 acres is too much, stop at me, stop at 500 acres! ” The man with only 50 acres will dispute this proposition ; he will demand that the limit shall be 50 acres, and so, downwards, until we come to those who are landless. We do not take much stock in Dukes as a rule, but the Duke of Argyll has used an almost unanswerable argument which at the same time sweeps away the nonsense we so often hear about perpetual leasing, and is a complete answer to those who object to large holdings on the pretence that such holdings are wanted by the mass of the people—that they are necessary for the good of all, and not for that of a few. The Duke says:

* " Supposing that lettlen could be found willing to dcTota the yean of labor and skill which are necessary to make wild soils productive, uuder no other tenure than that of a long “ improvement lease.” . . .; supposing this to be trne, still equally the whole area of any given region would soon be in the exclusive possession for long periods of time” (m|ths ease of 1 .perpetual leases,’ for ever) “ of a certain nnmber of individual farmers ; and would not be open to occupation by the poor of all the world. Thus the absolute ownership which Mr George declares to be blasphemous against God and nature is still asserted on behalf of some mere traction of the human race.”

The gist of the foregone argument is, that we may call land tenure by any name ve please, leasehold or freehold; a man may own 100,000 acres or only a quarter-acre sedion, yet still an apparent injustice must be done to some, fur, to the penniless, landless tramp, the holder of one acre must seem as much a robber as the holder of 50,000 acres seems to the person who has but 800 acres, Tho Graduated Land Tax means “ bursting up ” large estates; we have Mr Bunny’s word for it, and the word of those greater than he ; “ bunting up ” means confiscation. If confiscation be once commenced what man may say, “ Thus far shall confiscation go and no farther ? ” With the firt effective blow aimed at holdings of 50,000 acres, a first effective blow has also been aimed at the holding of one rood. The Graduated Land Tax so favored by such professed lovers of small settlers as HI r Bunny is the first note of the war waged against freehold tenures, Small as well as large settlers should bear this clearly in mind.

lint, when these socialists are faced with the logical deduction of their i wild hypothesis, they declare they do do*, mean confiscation. True, they said it, hut that was only their joke, or eaid to give a liner flavor to their eloquence. They simply meant that large estates should bear their fair share of taxation. Let us understand this contention then. It will be admitted that the land of these large holders has not increased in value, save by that which has been put in it and on it, and by these bridges, road», ftud railways‘which have erected or constructed in its neighborhood. The land owner, small or large, is already, by means of the property tax, taxed for bis improvements. If we say that the largo bolder should pay a b'flther rate than the small holder, where are we going to stop? if we increase the taxation to the largo holder, because his laud has I been improved by bridges, railways and roads, should we not also more heavily tax the small holder? Has

not his land also increased in value by means of these same railways, roads and bridges? “Yes,” perhaps says the holder of some 500 acres, “ Yes, these men with their immense holdings should pay twice or even thrice over.” Good! but then here comes in our landless swagger friend again who says, and with equal justice; “ Yes, and the man with a town quarter-acre section should also be taxed twice over, for here am I without a foot of land to call my own.” We re-iterate, once acknowledge this “ bursting up ” policy of Mr Bunny’s to be the true, right and honest policy, and it is almost impossible to say where it can stop. Indeed it can only stop at entire confiscation of all freehold tenure; that would simply be a mere matter of time.

We hare a great deal more to say about this graduated land tax, but we will say it at a future time.