View report page

62
present system of assessment for local rates furnishes a reasonably fair
method of raising funds for these purposes.
(b) Municipal undertakings, such as tramways, lighting, waterworks,
&c. These undertakings represent a form of co-operation for the
supposed benefit of the ratepayers, and any loss thereon should be borne
in the same manner, as the ratepayers must be considered responsible for
the mistakes (if any) of their agents.
(c) Onerous expenditure, such as that on the poor, the police, lunatic
asylums and other unproductive objects. This class of expenses, it is
admitted, ought to be borne by the whole community, according to their
means, and originally the system of assessment did correspond generally
with this principle. The growth in modern times of personal property
which is now reasonably calculated to amount in this country to a capital
value threefold that of real property, has rendered it necessary that some
change should be made in the system of levying funds for this class of
expenditure. The object has been but imperfectly attained so far by the
allocation of certain parts of the Imperial revenues to local uses. It has
been proposed that the house-tax and possibly other taxes should be'
surrendered to local authorities. This, however, would only add to the
resources of towns and districts already possessing ample means, and the
Council has already affirmed the principle that a large allocation out of the
general revenue to meet a large portion of the onerous expenditure can
alone lead to a satisfactory result.
In this connection it is fair to remember that such trades and
professions as require extensive and costly premises are unfairly taxed for
onerous expenditure, seeing that the true measure of contribution should
be the profit made by the contributor, and not the cost of carrying on his
trade or profession.
(d) Lastly, there is the expenditure for local improvements, which
expenditure eventually adds to the value of real property, and consequently
should be borne in a fair measure by owners of such property. The usual
mode of raising money for such objects is by loans, repayable by instalments.
As the occupier, so long as he remains in occupation, receives the
benefit of the improvements, it is obvious that the interest on such loans
should be borne by him ; and he might justly pay somewhat more, as the
benefit is usually much greater than the amount of such interest. The
freeholders at the utmost should not be called upon to pay more than the
instalments of capital cost of such improvements; indeed, they should pay
less in cases where a long term of years must elapse prior to their
receiving any benefit. But whatever contribution the site-owners are to
make, the necessity arises that site values should be ascertained and rated
unless in the opinion of the community the expense and difficulty of raising
a tax in this way would outweigh its advantages.
Bearing these considerations in mind, we beg to report that the Bill
proposes to ascertain site values by a method to which we do not object,