CORRESPONDENCE

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16322, 20 September 1918, Page 10

CORRESPONDENCE

FURLOUGH FOR SOLDIERS. TO THE EDITOB OJT "THE PBESS." Sir. —I have been pu**led concerning !wo renorts appearing in tlio papers this week. The.first is that 7000 Anz.cs nre being returned to Australia for Christina?, and the second that 50 Main Body men per month are being returned io Nov.* Zealand. Sir James ' Allen is reported as having saidthat the Imperial authorities have decided the inatter, but unless the number of Australians has been mi.;rep~rted, one wonder?. if their dec'sion is ne essarily final.' It appears absolutely f. rcical to arrange i for 50 mpi per month, wbi-li that in about four ye rswcw 1 have some of the 6th and 7th R enforcements with us, who have already been away three years. One gets suspicious of military rule when everything works out so smoothly in regard to getting men away, but any obstacle is unsuimountable when they have done their share and deserve a. sprll. Hoping this matter will not be> allowed to rest in its present position. —Yours, etc., A. COOPER. WOOL PROFITS. TO the editor of "the press." . Sirlt is rather amusing to notico that our Acting-Premier, not content with the "Odd offices of Mr Charles de Yere Teschemaker-Shutc and Mr Newman, M.P., has enlisted the services of the Navy League to wheedle the farmers into presenting that unknown wrol su plus to the sailors of the mercantile marine. Now, Sir, when we farmers have to pay unconscionably high freights for everything we use and consume, when shipowners a.e reaping u iheard-of divi- : dends, when shi pi g stok is soaring; heavenwards while Ne -. Z3 land pro- i dure of every description is seil'ng in j the Home markets about' half the price of any other of equal qu litv. I do , think Sir James is putting the saddle ; mpon the wrong horse in asking us to contribute more than we are doing indirectly already. We are told that the wool-growers will be communicated with, soliciting their personal consent to the contribution. and I,fancy the bulk of the Canterbury growers will be sufficiently cautious not to commit themselves until they have ascertained what sum was to oe dealt with. The freezing companies and slipe wool shippers will he receiving a nice Christmas box for the add : tional 25 per cent, on shipments, vide the » Dominion "Gazette," and I have not heard thattheir surplus is to be included in the donation. So far there is no 25 per cent, extra for the farmer on his greasy wool, but if Dhe Imperial Government has seen fit to increase the price for slipe wool as above, why not for greasy as well ? . Mr Massey has thought it well to cable advice to farmers not to commit themselves to forw r ard sales of lambs, and I think his advice equally oppor T tuno in regard to wool surpluses. Mr Charles do Vere TeschemakerShute was the prime mover in this donation business, as correspondence between him and Mr Newman; M P., published in the "Otago Daily Times," indicated, but we have not seen -Mr Teschemaker-Shute's' name mentioned lately. There should he no dificulty in allocating any surplus, and I cann; t for the lifo of me Bee why the Acting-Promier, in the face of opposition, is so anxious to deal with it "in one sum. The primary producer is bearing a , heavy enough burden already, as timo will abundantly prove, and Mr Massey evidently knows it if his colleague doos not.—Yours, oto., WOOL-GROWER. LAND TAX. TO THE EDITOR OF "THE PBESS." Sir, —I would like to say just a few lines in answer to "Ex-Farmer's" letter in your paper of this morning. I will' try and tell him why the mortgagor should pay the tax instead of the mortgagee. I have fifteen hundred pounds let. out on land at 5J per cent. I have bad health, not fit to work, and the interest on that money is my sole income to pay doctors and live upon. The farmer is getting increased prices for his produce. lam getting nothing, only that I have to pay double to live. And I suppose there are many others like-me—all they have to jive upon is the bit of money they have on'mortgage, and it is little enough without paying tax on it.—Yours, etc., EX-FARMER No. 2.

xo the editor of "the press." Sir, —In your paper of yesterday's date ".Ex-iarmer'' complains .of iar- . mors with mortgages having to pay land tax on their properties as though ; they were freenold and unencumbered.. Docs "Ux-Farmer" not know that to own land in i\ ew. Zealand is considered by many to be a very grievous sin,' , and they may be sure that, like other sins, it will find them out. And as they are not likely to be punished for this. particular sin in the next world, a thoughtful Government sees that they do not go unpunished in this. I believe that the farmer can deduct the interest he pays On his mortgage from bis income tax, but it might easily happen that the land might be called upon to bear three taxes: first, the land tax; second, tne income tax (each payable direct by the farmer); and third, the income tax payable by the mortgagee, this being paid out oi < the interest payable by the 'mort- j gagor. Land in New Zealand seems to me. to be the only producer of income in which capital invested in it is taxed. The merchant, the . manufacturer, the draper, the grocer, and all other business capital is free of taxation, the income oeing the only taxation. Why should money invested in land be treated on a different basis to money invested in busyness ? The latter gives much the better return on the capital invested. I think there are two means of taxation that seem fair: either a property tax in which one would pay on all he possesses, or the income tax pure and simple, this being, I think, the fairest. But to ; single out capital invested in land for taxation while capital invested in business is not taxed, is a punishment reserved especially for that chief of sinners. the man who buys land, from which is produced all that makes a countrv prosperous.—Yours, etc., IT. L. BOWKER.