A MISLEADING COMPARISON.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 130, 3 June 1922, Page 6

A MISLEADING COMPARISON.

It is really time that Mr. Massey be- | came more candid in his comparisons ' between New Zealand and Australian taxation. He persists in making a comparison between income tax levies in the two countries which is partial and highly misleading. At Invercangill he made a scries of comparisons designed to show, in the words of the Press Association's summary, that the income tax lin Australia was "substantially more severe than in Xew Zealand." The incomes he selected ranged between £500 | from property to £3000 from ! earned income. No one would gather from this reply to his critics that the chief and almost the only point made by them in respect to taxation in the two countries Ls the great difference between the treatment of companies. It has been repeatedly pointed out to Mr. Massey that whereas lin Xew Zealand a company is taxed up jto 8/0 on its pro'tits, in Australia State j taxation ranges from a shilling in the I pound in \ietoria to a possible three :shillings in Queensland, and the Federal ■ tax is 2/8 in the pound on undivided profits only, and the Prime Minister has i been asked how he xpects Xew Zealand | manufacturers to compete with Austrai lian tinder such conditions. 'Die matter 'can be brought to an easy test. For I the yeur ending June. 1021. the Austrai lian Governments together collected i C 24,286,000 in income tax, which is equivalent to about £4 0/ per head of population. iN'ew Zealand collected £5,_48,n00 in 1920-21. or about £0 15 ' per head, and £(1,000.000 in 1021-22, or £4 18/ per head. The total taxation per head for Australia in 11)20-21 ■ was £13 10/7 per head: in New Zealand it was I tIR/9. These figures are far more eloiqucnt than classes of income tax selec- ■ ted by Mr. Massey, and We cannot see i what he hopes to gain by clouding the i issue.