From the Mailbag

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 20181, 25 June 1928, Page 6

From the Mailbag

THE RATING QUESTION

Sir, —Your correspondents “W” and “Apex” in this morning’s paper discuss very fairly the priucijßles of payment according - to ability to pay. “W” writes that it is a principle in quite extensive use, and he instances the practice of the medical profession, the Hospital Board and religious organisations. I feel sure that “W” will recognise that in each of these cases the practice is a form of charity. We all recognise that the sick, the aged and the poor, to a great extent owing to our bad government, are very often unable to provide for themselves, and if there is any case in which we might call upon the rich to help the poor it is in such cases. I feel sure also that even the very poorest would not accept charity except as a last extreme. It is no substitute for justice. But I suggest to “W” that neither our voting system nor ordinary business dealings is the place for charity. “W” writes that “all wealth is of social creation and ought to be available for social purposes.” I quite disagree with him in this. Some wealth is of social creation, namely unimproved land value, but all other wealth is the creation of the Individual under the opportunity afforded by society, and I suggest that the’ unimproved value of land is some measure of tho opportunity afforded by society, while the value of all other wealth is no suck measure. I suggest also that a rate is not the proper method of equalising social inequalities between individuals, but that it is a contribution from certain land owners to pay for services rendered. If I unite with my neighbour in making a road to our properties and he builds a “marble palace” on his land I have no equitable claim upon him to pay more for the road on that account. He may have acquired the money to build by murder, by theft, or by fraud, but my remedy is by other process than the rate. If I ask him to pay for my share of the road because he is wealthy I am asking for charity. “Apex” writes: “If a millionaire bought a pair of pants similar to those purchased by the pauper, both would naturally be charged the same price for the "goods. The same would apply with a piece of land owned by a millionaire and pauper ratepayer.” That is exactly my contention. So if tho tailor supplied the pants and the local authority the street, and the millionaire put £lOOO into the pockets of the pants, and a £lO,OOO building « . the land, neither tailor nor local authority has any equitable claim on the ad 1ed wealth. He goes on to say: “But supposing the millionaire bought •». pair of trousers in keeping with his status and the pauper a pair of dungarees, the millionaire's trousers would naturally cost more.” That is quite true. So if a poor man bought a block of land in the Avenue when he could only afford a modest section at Gonville 1 e would naturally be expected to pay the same price as the millionaire. If on tho other hand he should pay according to his ability he should be able to buy Avenue land and hold it at a very much lower rate than the millionaire. It has been suggested that the purchase of a pair of trousers is optional while the payment of a rate is not. The purchase of i pair of trousers or a piece of land is optional but, when you have purchased either, the payment is not optional. But even assuming that men should pay in proportion to their ability the annual value system does not effect this. As to the hardships suffered by certain tenants of business sites in the Avenue. I quite realise this. But the hardship is not really as groat as the figures suggest, for a great part of the increase is due to tho fact that the local body w collecting in rates approximately 50 per cent, more th tn before the change in system so th it, even if you reverted to the annual value system, assuming that t 1 valuations were the same the annual rate would have to be raised from 4s lOd in the £ to 7s 3d approximately. Very many of the ratepayers appear to be ignorant of tho fact that the local body (quite rightly I think) is raising approximately £115.000 in rates where they were previously raising approximately £BO,OOO. Further the hardship to tenants is not really due to the new system but to the change. The question for the ratepayer is, assuming that the unimproved value system is more just than another, are you to perpetuate a less just system because of a temporary hardship? For I would point out that such a relief to tenants produces a hardship to many more equally poor people. The ftfet Is that when a tenant contracts to pay his landlord’s future rates he practically gives the landlord a blank cheque. If the experience of Wanganui -will kill that system it will have done good. If I contract to pay my neighbour’s future liabilities, and those liabilities are just, I can have no complaint against the creditors for enforcing their claim even if they have neglected to do so in the past. It appears to me that the remedy is for the tenant to protest to his landlord and that the latter should meet him at least half way, or a provision might be made in the law that when a change in system is carried its enforcement might be postponed for say five ; ears to enable tenants to work off all or part of their terms. OSWALD GARDNER. Wanganui, June 23. •

MR. ATMORE AT GONVILLE

Sir, —Your report of Mr Atmore’s meeting at Gonville suggests that I moved an amendment opposing a vote of thanks to Mr Atmore. My amendment, which I wrote down was as follows:—“That this meeting thanks Mr Atmore for his address but considers that his arguments are. not convincing.” This amendment I proposed very dearly and slowly so that it could be held by everyone in the hall. Now, if a friend urges you to a particular course and you do not agreo with him it surely is more manly and more gentlemanly to thank him for his advice but to tell him that you do not agree with him than to let him go away under the impression that you arc convinced by him. Further, it is the custom in moving a resolution to say something in support of it. The mover of the principal motion said something to tho effect that he would like to say more but the night w r as cold. In njoving an amendment this is also the custom and it is still more necessary and

courteous to all to explain why you wish to vary the motion. The chairman did not suggest that I should not say anything, but that I should not make a speech. He more than once said that I must be brief. If my remarks were too lengthy it was due partly to the fact that Mr Atmore did not think my main illustration applicable to town lands, although I think he stated that he might agree with me if it were applied to country lands. I, therefore, on lhe spur of the moment varied my illustration which nevertheless was quite applicable. In any case it rested with the chairman to decide whether my remarks were too I lengthy. Your reporter omitted to report my principal illustration which was, that if the principle were sound, that men should be taxed in proportion to their ability to pay, then, if a landlord subdivided his land into five farms he should say to his prospective tenants, “I shall not fix your rents now but will wait till I see how you get on. If you are a capable and • energetic farmer your rent will be high, while if you are lazy and incompetent it will be low.” This illustration I claim is equally applicable to town or country lands. Your reporter also omitted to report the principle which I suggested, namely that men should bo taxed as nearly as possible in proportion to the opportunity afforded them by the taxing authority. ‘OSWALD GARDNER. Wanganui, June 23.

FIELDEN TAYLOR FUND

u Ou wc re good enough to publish my appeal a little time ago. Would you arid to your kindness by allowing me to express warm thanks for the generous response of your readers. The treasurers acknowledge gratefully.— Rev. Canon Williams £2 2s, J. 8. Harrison £2, H. B. Newton £3, Rev. H. 8. Hamilton ss, Mrs Earle £3 3s, Dr. Williams £2 2s, Airs Liffiton £l, Bir James and Lady W ilson £2, Mrs Foreman £1 Is, Mr F. Rodger ss, Mrs Christie £3 3i, Miss Sherring ss, Anon. 10s, S.M.E.P. £l, Mrs Turnbull £l, Mr and Mrs Hedgman 10s. Mangaweka 10s, Feildingite ss, Air and Airs Russell and friends 17s, E. and Af. Coates ss, B. Stroud ss, K. M. Currie 7s 6d, Mrs Davis £l,, T.B. 10s, Anon. 7s, Mrs Anderson £lO, Afrs Swan 10s, J. W. Hirst £1 Is, Mrs Harper £2 2s, Afra Whisker ss, Sympathiser £l, Air and Airs Hine £1 Is, Miss Fowler 10s, Mr and Mrs Frankish £2, G. Drewitt 10», Just a Afite ss, Mr and Mrs Weller and family ss, per Air Weller ss. Anon. £2, Mrs Alecock ss, Afasmuch (Waverley) 10s, Anon. G.C. ss, Mrs W. (Anon.) £l, Anon. £l, Anon. £l, Miss Cook JOs, Miss Alorton Jones, £l, Forlong lt»s, Airs Buckrell £2 2s, G.F.S. Matron and girls £l5, C. H. Pyke £2, A Friend £T. sums under ss, 13s 6d, Justin Aylmer £2, Mrs Brown 10s. Total £79 2s. Of the sum £5O was sent to th* Rev. T. Fiolden Taylor, as soon as that, sum was in hand. Tho fund will b« closed and the balance forwarded to him at the end of the month. Ho wrote a few liner from his bed thanking his Wanganui friends for their faith in him and affirming his determination to struggle to Court for July 4. There is no doubt that the generous help of your readers has given fresh courage to one whose life has been spent encouraging those in need. R. CREED MEREDITH Archdeacon of Waitotara Wanganui, June 23.