"DON'T LIKE IT."

Auckland Star, Volume LXVII, Issue 232, 30 September 1936, Page 10

"DON'T LIKE IT."

CLOSURE APPLIED. TAXATION PROTESTS. CONFISCATION ALLEGED. SHEEP FARMERS' BURDEN. (By Telegraph.—Parliamentary Reporter.', WELLINGTON, Tuesday. After nearly three hours' discussion in Committee on the short title of the Land and Income Tax (Annual) Bill, the Prime Minister, Mr. Savage, moved the closure. This was challenged by the Opposition, but the motion was agreed to by 36 votes to 10. A> division was then taken on the short title, and voting for its retention was also 36 to io. -V v,; In the course of the discussion, in which the Opposition sustained its protest against taxation proposals, Mr. C. A. Wilkinson (National, Egmont) said that no man would keep a farm if he was losing on it, and if all the profits were taken for land tax no one else would want it. A man could have £10,000 invested at 4 per cent, and would have to pay £4 8/ in income tax, but if he put the same amount in land he would have to pay nearly £400. The Minister: He wouldn't have to pay £400. Mr. Wilkinson: Yes, he would. The man with land would have to pay land tax and taxes to the local body as well. He said the taxing proposals would drive money to investments returning 4 per cent. The tremendous taxations on big ventures would prevent people from putting money into them. Mr. J. G. Coates (National, Kaipara) said the graduated land tax was nothing more nor less than confiscation. There was not much difference between it and land and the savings bank. "Do You Agree with That?" In New South Wales, the Minister of Finance, Mr. Nash, said, if a farmer was working his land he was exempt from income tax if the unimproved, value of his land was under £3000. Mr. H. G. Dickie (National, Patea): Do you agree with that? The Minister: I don't say so. There was no real injustice in the bill to the main body of farmers, Mr. Nash said, and there were not many dairy farmers who would pay one penny extra. Mr. W. J. Broadfoot (National, Waitomo) said there were many mten who had invested. money from business in land, but they-were not allowed to set off farming losses .against business profits. % That: was not equitable. The larger areasfiji'NeW' Zealand were helpful they could afford to high-grade stock and supply the smaller farms. There was a lack of such areas in some districts, and to tax them out of othefs was unfair. . Mr. Coates referred to the effect the taxation would have on companies, which, he said, would be severely hit. These companies had done much to help thousands, and as soon as they began to recover .their profits were to be taxed away. . . ' Mr. W. P. Endean (National, Parnell) said that if the real test of the equity of income tax .was "what was left,' the same principle should be applied to land tax. In -many cases there would be nothing left before th<s taxing started. The bill was worse than confiscation, and was contrary to the principle of British justice. If a man could pay he should pay, but it was not fair to impose what was almost a penal tax on those who had not got the money. Three Shillings a. Sheep. Mr. W. J. Poison (National, Stratford) said that all the consideration seemed to be given to the dairy farmer and none at all to the sheep farmer. In some cases the taxation would amount to nearly 3/ a sheep. The Government was proposing to impose crushing taxation on the fa.rmers, who produced a large proportion of the national incomc from the exports of the landowner. The Prime Minister - moved that the question be put.. ' : Mr. Broadfoot: They, don't like it. Opposition Members: No, no! After a' similar rvote the Committee was still discussing clause 2 of the bill when progress was reported, and the House rose-at 10.30 p.m.-.