TAXATION

Bay of Plenty Times, Volume LX, Issue 10698, 17 October 1931, Page 3

TAXATION

Relief to the Farmer. DEBATE ON LAND AND INCOMETAX BILL. Speaking in the House of Representatives on Wednesday last in connection with the Land and Incometax Amendment. Bill land also the Annual Taxing Bill) the member for Tauranga. Mr C. E. Macmillan, said that in dealing with the subject one must take it as a whole, and not take certain portions, pick them to pieces, and then claim that a case had been : made out condemnatory of the whole proposals contained in the Amending Bill. The Supplementary Financial Statement had shown that the position of the farmer was most desperate, and it followed that as the farmer produced the wealth, everybody > was suffering witli him. Some method had therefore to he found to give him relief. Mi McCombs. W«> are giving none to the small farmer. Mr Barry, That is true. Mr Macmillan replied that <lu it e apparently the two honourable members who had interjected could not I::ivi read the Supplementary Financia 1 St a t em.ept. Mr Barry. We have read it all l ie In . Mr Macmillan said neither of the honourable cent lenten eould have uml err 1 1 uu 1 it. or they did not undersi;iml tilt, 1 position of tiu* larniors. Mr Barry. Yep do not understand il yourself. Mr Macmillan hoped before ho had ;misheil that Ihe limmurahle member would understand it a little morn than he apparently did at Hv moment. Both honourable gentlemen who had interjected had apparently’ omitted to lake into account what was proposed to he done for the heiictit of the small farmer in respect of fertilizers. It was recognised that the owners of large areas of land, almost entirely second-class, could not indulge in the use of fertilizers because the cost of distributing it. over their property was too great. Starting from the other end Of the scale, if the Government decoded to give some advantage to the small farmers who did use fertilizers, them it was faced with the fact that it was giving no relief to the farmer on a bigger scale. Therefore, in remitting the graduated land tax formerly paid by the holder of land of a higher unimproved value, an effort had been made to equalize the benefits obtained by the smaller man. That, ho thought, must he obvious to pv one. He did not claim that it was possible to devise a scale by which one could precisely equalise the benefits to all, but certainly under, the proposals contained in the Bill benefits had been given at all. It must also be obvious that a proposal which would take from a man some of his capital necessary to enable him to carry on was quite unsound. Mr Langstone.—Do not some of the larger farmers use fertilizer? Mr Macmillan replied that those who did would, of course, benefit by the reduced cost of fertilizers, but if the Labour party took up the attitude that the solution of the unemp Icy men problem was not in inducing people to go on the land, then they have to find some other solution. There was only one industry in New Zealand that could not be overdone — the fanning industry. We could not all be engaged in secondary industries, but wo could all be farmers with’little cost to the State and much advantage to the rest of the community. Mr Fletcher. —How would they dispose of the produce? Mr Macmillan said it did not matter how it was disposed of, it would be real wealth, and could be disposed of. Mr Fletcher. —It does not follow. Mr Macmillan failed to see how the honourable member would dispose of his labour, if ho had any labour to olfcr, when there were 5 0,0.00 people out. of employment. He repeated (hat the only thing that could not be overdone was the number of people on the land. Ho failed to see how any system of taxation which only enabled a farmer to carry his farm by borrowing < mild be justified. Every effort must be made not only (n induce other people to go on the kind, lint to keep on it the people atrendy there, whether large farmers or small. The opposition of the Labour parly to I he removal of the graduated land-tax would he, quite sound if uo other tux was to be. sult.nituted, but il wti.s proposed to spbatituto ani liter tax, and it was wiHtii’. Hie bounds of possibility dial Hie large farmer would, und-T lint proposals , ouluined in. Hie Bill, pay more to Hie Stale than under Hm graduated land-tax. Members of the Labour party should assist in that direction, but it was abundantly evident that the re, were members of that party whose sole desire was not to help Hu country, but to ruin what they called the big man. Mr Barnard. —The boa. gentleman : is not serious.

Mr "Macmillan said he was absolutely serious. If that was not, the desire of some members of the Labour party why then did they not look at the matter in all its bearings. If it were possible, continued Mr Macmillan, to substitute for farming any secondary industry that would bring into the country as much as it, now got from primary products, then he would support the Labour Party, j but they know perfectly well that I could not be done. He was unable to follow the argument that a greater advantage was being given to the land owners with the higher valuations than to the men with smaller , valuations. As a farmer he was perfectly satisfied that the proposals in the Bill were a fair and equitable means of providing much desired assistance to farmers. It had been ar- 1 gued. that in the matter of fertilizers only those who used a particular class would get the benefit. That was hardly correct, as obviously, if the Government controlled the price of one class of fertilizer, people dealing in other classes must meet the com- j j petition by a reduction. However, : in that connection the Labour Party I had admitted that the small farmer - was being assisted. When in the conduct of any business, whether a : public business or in the conduct of one’s own affairs, a stage was reachi ed when it was impossible to carry i outgoings by borrowing. then ion without supplementary annual 'it was time to take stock. : That, unfortunately, was the position !of the larger land owners in New 1 Zealand to-day. and it was the duty of Parliament to try and put these people in a position where they could carry on without loading themselves up with further liabilities. Again, if ' tim graduated land tar; were left on, and it was necessary tor the large laud owners to borrow the £i!l!0,ti00 to mem that tax. then every person in New Zealand who did business and required accommodation must of necessity be harder hit through the fact that fZH’O.oob was withdrawn from the money market. lie could see nothing in the proposals that any reasonable person could take exception to. ami was thoroughly satisfied . that they wore entirely on tight lines. (f there were no substitution of till I income-tax ami a severer lax than lias j ever before been charged to farmers —in lieu of the graduated land-tax.