THE SUPREME BEAUTY OF THE PROPERTY-TAX.

Waikato Times, Volume XXXV, Issue 2805, 5 July 1890, Page 6 (Supplement)

THE SUPREME BEAUTY OF THE PROPERTY-TAX.

TO THK EDITOR. Sir, —Thoro is a beauty about tho Pro-perty-tax which is almost divine. The great loveliness of this tax is that while other taxes are unjust in their imposition, this Property-tax alone stands out a3 a tax in which in the imposition and application there can be no injustice. A pro-perty-tax is a perfect tax in this way. It compels us each to pay our just debt, and is almost heavenly in this, that it protects us from paying our neighbours' debts, The expense oif the Government of tho country is a debt duo by everyone according to his wealth, for wealth is tho only foundation —tho only just foundation upon which to levy taxes. All other taxes arc robbery; in this way, that one pays ton times too much, while another pays ton times too little. I will take for example one popular saying, that is tax luxuries. If you examine into tho principle of taxing luxuries, you will find that in application it is in direct opposition to all principles of liberty, for thoro can be nothing more hurtful to the principles of liberty than interference with the liberty of tho subject. The liberty of tho subject is tho foundation upon which liberty rests. Without such liberty there can bo no justice, and without that liberty oppression and injustice would reign supreme. I will need to give an illustration to show how taxing luxuries is interfering with the liberty of tho subject, and also show how by so taxing it ctompels one to pay his neighbour's debts and enables his neighbour to escape paying his own debt and shoving it on to another. Suppose my neighbour and ,1 are alike healthy. We ought by alt laws of justice, having the same stake in the country, have to pay the same amount of taxes. That would be fair and just ; but this paying taxes for luxuries overturns all that justice. My neighbour and I have both wives. I, from some feeling of sentiment, like to see my wife tip top. I buy her gorgeous array ; I cloth her in a velvet bonnet with an ostrich feather, a satin jacket and a silk skirt. These are all heavily taxed. My neighbour he buys his wife a straw hat and a cotton dress at 3d per yard. The consequence is I have to pay iny own share of tho taxes of the Goverument of the country, this is quite right; but it is all wrong that I should have to pay my neighbour's share, which I have to do. I ask is that justice ? Is it justicd that I should bo taxed for a feeling ? Are our feelings, our sentiments to be taxed, and tangiblo wealth to go untaxed, for to do away with the Pro-perty-tax and taxing luxuries amounts to the fact that you lot substantial possessible wealth go free, and you tax sentiment, a feeling which is nothing, at least nothing that we can afford to pay taxes upon. A vision is nothing that can bo taxable, and sentiment is only aa a vision, and Liberals of New Zealand will uphold this doctrine—queer Liberals they are ; by and by I will have something to say about them. Of course, my neighbour goes in strong for taxing luxuries, but what would ho thiuk if the doctrine was applied to hi in so that ho had ray Bharo of the taxes to pay. I guess that would be a horse of another colour. My neighbour's daughters sine, and do so beautifully. My daughters cannot sing. How would my neighbour think about taxing luxuries if there was to be a tax put upon siuging. Sieging to his daughters and to himself is as much a luxury as my wife being dressed in silk and satins is to her and me. Tho truth is taxing my feeling for having my wife grand, and the taxing of his daughters for singing is, and would be, an interfercuce with the liberty of the subject, which ought to bo put down as being unjust. Mr Kditor, I will now have something to say about Now Zealand Liberals. Hero in New Zealand everything is exactly the reverse of what it is in England. Thero tho north wind blows cold, here hot; thoro Christmas |is cold, hero hot. So it is with politicians. In England Tory stands for oppression ; here, liberty freedom and injustice. In England liberal represents justice to the many; hero it represents robbery of the labourer. Sir John Hall and Mr Bryce are supposed to bo Tories, and what do we see of them. They hold that property or wealth, has duties, and it is one of their duties that property should pry for its protection ; they recogniso that it is wealth that should pay for the Government of the country ; they recognise that a poor man has nothing to protect, and that it would be the height of injustice to make him pay for what ho does not receive. On tho other hand, what do we see of New Zealand Liberals. We see them cry out against the Property-tax, and would do away with it, which is nothing less or more than that wealth should not pay. But those who have no wealth should pay, they want just the same as it was in France befoie tho first revolution. In that country for two hundred years before the revolution, the nobles and the monarchs ground the poor with taxes down to starvation, to such an extent that tho people went mad, tho natural outcome of which was vengeful retaliation. What happened in France will not happen here. Here the people are a power and tUey would never stand the doing away with the Property-tax and so transferring the taxes from wealth, to be put upon themselves who have uo wealth. Let Sir G. Grey, Mr Lawry, and all the others ju-t try and do away with the Property-tax, and there would bo a rumpus which would soon make them change their front. Mr Editor, can you define, or can any one do so, what Democrats, young New Zealanders, and Liberals, what principles those represent. We see a Democrat such as Stout—ho poses as a Democrat—in fact that word Democrat is his strong card. Well we see this Democrat jump at a title as a child would run for a toy. We see a Liberal like Sir G. Grey, he proposes to transfer tho paying of taxes from wealth, for he would be doing so by doing away with the Property-tax, aud as a matter of course the taxes would then be thrown upon those who have no wealth. As for the Young New Zealanders I don't know what they intend to do. And, Mr Editor, seeing that everything is "higelty pigelty" about what a Democrat or Liberal represents, and as we aro all at soa as to tho meaning of the words Democrat and Liberal, I would suggest a name for tho parties in Mew Zealand. I would say there is one party, such us Hall and Bryce, and thoso who think with them. I would say they bo termed tho "other noses," because they can see beyond their own nose. All the others I would term "tho own noses," because thny cannot seo beyond their own nose. It would very much simplify matters if we had just the two terms —tho owu-noso party and tho other-nose party—Yours truly, iIAIIAI'II'I.

llanipipi, 15th June, IS9O. P.S. —It would bo, as long as we have the present Custom duties, a rascally shame to put an Income Tax upon the £1000 year, but no property man. You would bo lighting the candle upon liim at both ends. If ho .spends his £1000, the Covernmcnt has at least D'JuO from him ; surely this is sufficient. If he does not spend but saves it, then you have the Propertytax upon him. I have in the above letter t-aid nothing against the £000 exemption. I cannot be repeating old-said arguments used by mo formerly. It is well enough known I am down upon the exemption.