LAND AND INCOME TAX.

Auckland Star, Volume LIII, Issue 246, 17 October 1922, Page 7

LAND AND INCOME TAX.

POSITION OF COMPANIES. PROPOSED REDUCTION*. OPPOSED BY PREMIER. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.; WELLINGTON, Monday. The House "went into Committee tonight to cvonsider clause 4 of the Land and Income Tax Amendment Bill, which had been referred to the Native Affairs Committee, as it dealt with taxation on native land. The Hon. A. T. Ngata expressed a hope that the Prime Minister would soon be able to make further concessions to the natives. Mr. Massey said he would be glad to do so, but it was impossible at present. Aβ a matter of fact, the whole Land and Income Tax Act required overhauling, but it could not all be done at once. They had made a good start this year, and he hoped to continue the good work. Mr. W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne) protested against any concession being made to natives. Their trusts were holding large areas of undeveloped land, and every means that would compel them to use their land was being taken away. The clause was passed. In the schedule, Mr. G. Mitchell (Wellington South) moved that in no case should taxation on companies exceed 5/ ■in the £. Mr. Massey resisted the amendment. He could not possibly accept it. It would double taxation on all incomes between £300 and £2000, and if it was carried he could not carry on ( and must drop the bill. READJUSTMENT INEVITABLE. Mr. T. M. Wilford, Leader of the Opposition, said he believed in a thorough readjustment of company taxation. It must come, but he doubted if it could be done by a simple resolution such as that moved by Mr. Mitchell. It must be accompanied by some alternative, and in | the absence of that alternath'e he regretted he was unable to support the amendment. The -non- C. J. Parr (Eden) said the Minister of Finance had based his finances on the understanding that he was receiving a given amount of revenue from companies, and to take that revenue away would mean that individual taxation must be heavily increased or the country would be plunged into difficulty. The Hon. J. A. Hanan (Invercargill) pointed out that the Taxation Committee had recommended a reduction in company taxation to 5/. Mr. T. K. Sidey (Dunedin South) asked the Prime Minister if he could say what earn in revenue would be lost if the amendment were carried. Mr. Massey said he could not say exactly what sum would be lost, but he did know that no one seemed co well able to pay income tax as companies. They passed the tax on, and that was one reason only. He wanted to see a reduction in taxation so that the public might get the benefit. LABOUR PARTY'S ATTITUDE. Mr. H. E. Holland, Leader of the Labour party, said that while in sympathy with the spirit of the amendment he could not vote for it until the taxation on higher incomes was increased. As the amendment stood] it simply meant a concession to the banks and rich companies, which after paying income tax were able to build up immense reserve funds. Mr. Mitchell said he felt the Prime Minister could not give effect to his amendment this year. He brought it forward to force attention to the question of a readjustment of taxation, especially with regard to those companies capable of employing labour and increasing industry. The amendment was lost on the voices and the bill was reported without amendments. THIRD READING DEBATE. On the third reading Messrs. Ngata and Lysnar dealt at length with the effect of taxation on Maori blocks on the East Coast. Mr. W. H. Field (Otaki) protested against the taxation of flax as land. Mr. Holland justified his position on company taxation, which he considered utterly unscientific, but could not be dispensed with until they had something to put in its place. Mr. Massey, in reply, characterised as unscientific the amendments moved in Committee 'by Messra. Holland and McCallum to limit the reduction in supertax to taxpayers with land of less value than .-CI O,OOO and £20,000. He reviewed the recommendations of the Taxation tommittee to show that the Government was doing a great deal to give effect to them. He favoured a reduction in taxation at the earliest moment, but he could not afford to lose revenue, and if he had to look in other directions for the money it would have to come from a reduction in the exemptions. That he dil not wish to do. The prospects, however. were looking better, and he believed a reduction would come, and with it a reduction in the cost of living. The bill was read a third time and passed.