FARMERS' UNION AND THE LAND BILLS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume XXIX, Issue 7244, 1 August 1907, Page 4

FARMERS' UNION AND THE LAND BILLS.

A special meeting of the North Canterbury branch of the Farmers' Union was held yesterday in Christchurch, for the'purpose of discussing the. Land Bills. It was thrown open to all such farmers as felt inclined to attend. There were present several members of the Executive of the Union, and twenty others.

"Mr G. W. Leadley moved: "That in dew of the large annually recurring surpluses, any increase in direct taxation is unnecessary"; "that the proposal to differentiate between the owners of city properties and the owners of country lands, to the great disadvantage of the latter, is at once anomalous and unjust," and "that no further increase in the graduated land tax should be imposed unless it is accompanied by a corresponding increase in the income tax." He excused the smallness of the attendance by the fact that the many farmers in town were all busy. His motions touched only one phase of_ the: land policy, for it was impossible to do more at one meeting such as the present one. The only point touched was taxation, which was perhaps the most important. He had prophesied last year that the Bill would be dropped. What was now under discussion was the . fragments. The chief feature of the Bill was land nationalisation. He objected to it, for it did not come within the range of practical politics. They had to go to the graveyard for aiithorities on the subject, for not a living statesman ao-reed with the theories of Henry George. Fr,om George's work on Progress and Poverty," Mr Leadley read passages as parallels to Clause 4, indicating the ' of the Bill's policy. The policy of the Bill combined with that of the Land and Income Assessment Bill were not worthy. He recommended the Government to recognise that in formulating a land policy honesty would pay best. The last clause "of the Assessment Bill was most objectionable, making every man a spy upon his neighbour. The Bill compelled every man to supply in writing informations as to his neighbour s position and transactions and he thought .that most improper The Bill had many objectionable features. He objected to the large increase of taxation because it was unnecessary. Taxation was for the purposes of maintaining the system of Government. The pro-, posal in the new Bill was not necessary., because the money was not needed. For years there had been large surpluses, and'when the colony had a. surplus last year of three-quarters of a million such an increase was unnecessary. The taxation was essentially a , class taxation, though the Government always insisted that it never fostered class'at all. The tax was aimed at a small section of'land owners. The Premier expected to -gather £90,000 more revenue by this proposal, but it must all come from one or two hundred people, at whom the tax was directly aimed. What had these people done to deserve that? They had been guilty of the new crime of holding land. An Emperor of Rome had offered a reward.to a citizen who would invent a new sin; and now the Government had invented a new crime. It had drawn a distinction between property-holders in the town and those in the country. In, Clause 6 it levied a city tax of 8s per centum up to £40,000, after which the tax is doubled to £50,000 and a further increase afterwards. In the country, however, the tax is increased by 25 per cent., increasing tho impost by 12s 6d per cent. The landholders had seen the future of the colony, and had bought the land with their own money and the Government had ■ given them the'title. If a man invested £200 in land sixty years ago, his land might now be wor^h £2000. If he had invested his money at compound interest, his £200 would now be £3726 13s 4d, so that he would be very much better off. Those men had not done the best they could for themselves, yet the Government now proposed to tax them for holding the land through which they had contributed to the prosperity of the colony. It was immoral. .It was wrong for the Government to rob men of their property in response to a cry that had arisen for the disruption of the large estates. When John Ballance, the foremost reformer of hi;time, was alive, he strongly condemned tho principle of nationalisation and true Liberals could not endorse the proposals of the Bill. The Socialistic principle seemed to be always a levelling down, never a levelling up. Socialism was the religion of the unfit the refuge of the weakling. One never heard a strong, healthy soul crying to the Government for help; but the weakling was always whimpering to I the Government, asking it to drap down those above him. Holland had been held up as a model country, but. it was overrun with the works of Socialistic politicians, who were exploiting the farmers to their own destruction.- The proposals of the Bill were I unnecessary, unjust, and impolitic. The wrongs outlined in the Bill wero but forerunners of a long chain; and men of moans would surely be prevent ed'from coming into the country. The , name of the Bill was a misnomer. AI- ! though called the Land and Income Tax Assessment Bill, there was no word of income tax, It was a Land Tax Bill purely. The motion was carried" unanimous-