THE LAND TAX.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 49, Issue 285, 19 September 1929, Page 4

THE LAND TAX.

STAVELEY FARMERS' VIEWS.

"NOTHING TO SB AFRAID OF. The proposed super land tax was discussed at a meeting of the Staveley branch of the Farmers' Union on Tuesday evening. A letter from the district secretary invited an expression of opinion upon the super-tax on farm lands of an unimproved value of over £12,500, and any case of hardship iinder notice. After a good deal of discussion the letter was received.

The president (Mr D. Stevens) said he thought there had been an undue amount of bickering and crying through the branches about the matter. The crying had been done by men who before this' little bomb had burst among them had given the branches very little support. Mr H. N. Armstrong said he had gone to some trouble to take out figures about the matter. He did not wish to speak from a political viewpoint, but, candidly, he thought that a panic had been stirred up for political reasons and that the noise was unnecessary. In New Zealand there were only 1752 farmers who would be affected, 'and in Canterbury only 600, which showed that not one in ten would have to pay any increase, and so for the majority there was nothing to be afraid of. Land aggregation was going on. Mr Armstrong quoted a case on the route of the proposed South Island Main Trunk, where a man was buying up land on either side of the line. When the line went through his land would 'go up £lO an acre, though at present Tie was farming it worse than the former owners. The super-tax would burst up big estates. No legislation had ever been introduced that had not hit somebody. In this case there was an exemption of £12,500 of unimproved value. Suppose improvements on a place of that size amounted to £SOOO, making a capital value of £17,500. "If you don't tax this man, who the Dickens are you going to tax? He should consider himself lucky to have escaped so long," concluded Mr Armstrong. Mr A. Robertson ,said he thought that banks and stock and station agents, whose profits largely go out of the country, should have been more heavily taxed before coming to the country. Amalgamation of lands was sometimes necessary to cut down overhead expenses.