PUBLIC OPINION

Waikato Times, Volume 132, Issue 22152, 25 September 1943, Page 6

PUBLIC OPINION

CURRENT VIEWPOINTS LAND TENURE (To the Editor) Sir,—rln the course of the recent freehold versus leasehold controversy, prominence has been given to a form of freehold tenure devised by the Waikato Land Settlement Society. This tenure has, I believe, been approved for adoption by both the Government and the Returned Services Association, but I do not recollect the publication of the particulars of it. As a matter of general interest, I suggest that the society should make public the detailed incidents of this tenure.—l am, etc., DOUGLAS SEYMOUR. STATE HOUSE FREEHOLD (To the Editor) Sir, —One finds it hard to believe that there are in these enlightened times such people with one-track minds as your correspondent “Sceptic” must possess. The proposal to give the option of the freehold to tenants of State houses is a windfall to those who can see what it means. I doubt if “Sceptic’s” figures are correct, for if they are, a tenant paying the average rent of 30s a week l'or 60 years would pay to the Government the sum of £4680. But assuming that they are, if he were renting a State house worth £ISOO and he vacated it in say 20 years (at which the 30-year-old tenant of today would then be only 50 years of age), his equity would be £SOO, as against not a single simple “nazoo” under the present perpetual rental tenancy. Would he be still “Sceptical” with a nice little nest-egg such as this? —I am, etc., HOPEFUL. Sir,—“Sceptic” criticises the National Party’s proposal to allow the tenants of State houses to become owners, payment to be the same as present rentals. The answer to his criticism is this: If a tenant was able to buy his house by paying the same amount each week as he is now paying, the advantage to him would be that every year he would create an equity in the house, whereas at present he creates nothing. Under existing conditions the tenant of a State house pays, say, 29 shillings a week. If he lives in the house for 25 years he will have paid to the Government nearly £l9oo— the Government will still own the house.—l am, etc., C.W.B. TAXATION WITHOUT VOTE (To the Editor) Sir, —As one from the Old Country I am somewhat amazed at the indifference displayed with regard to a piece of legislation which has been described by Members of Parliament as being one of the finest Acts ever put upon the Statute Book, which, however, transgresses fundamental principles of right and justice. All know that the Americans celebrate on July 4 their Independence, fought and gained in a bloody war against the Mother Country, England. What was the war about? Every American will tell you—taxation without representation. Yet here in this fair land of ours we have that right broken and hardly a word of protest is made. I refer to the taxation of people between the ages of 16 and 21. If I were one of that age I would have no vote, therefore nobody has a right to tax me. But no, not a word of protest is heard. Is it right?—l am, etc,. SETTLER. RUSH TO BUY CLOTHES (To the Editor) Sir, —This morning on my way to work I was annoyed to see a queue of women crowding outside the doors of one of the leading dress firms of the town, presumably for the purpose of buying dress materials. Do you seriously think that we have become anyway civilised when women (all shapes and sizes) line up for the selfish purchase of materials for self-adornment, denying a fair share to each one, when the youth of the world is fighting and dying for their freedom? Don’t you think that Eve was more civilised than we are today?—l am, etc., DISGUSTED WORKING GIRL.