LAND TAX.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17292, 2 November 1921, Page 6

LAND TAX.

AMENDMENT OF THE LAW. DISCOUNT FOB CASH. (special to "the fress, ") WELLINGTON, November 1. • By message from the GovernorGeneral, an amending Bill in regard gard to the Finance Act made its appearance in the House of Representatives to-day. The Prime Minister explained that it applied the principle of rebate to the collection of land tax. Members would know how successful the principle had been in its application bv the Advances Department: The rebate proposed by the Bill was ten per cent, on the whole. Payers of land tax were wiring n very difiicult time at present. Very few of them had made any profit during the last twelve months, and some of them had made losses. The land tax had to be paid all the same, and the proposal in the Bill was made with the object of assisting and encouraging them. He thought there would be no loss to the Government, or very little loss. At any rate the laud tax "had to be paid between November 7th and November 28th. If those who had to pay the tax paid up before November T&th, they would receive the ten per cent, refund. If they were not able to pay by that date, or did not pay, there would be no rebate for them. He thought members would acknowledge thnt the producers were entitled to all the assistance and encouragement that the Government and Parliament could extend to them. Mr Wiiford: Does it mean any loss in revenue ?

Mr Massey: The amount of the rebate, of course. Mr Lysnar: What is the position if they don't pay on the 28th? Mr Massey: They don't get the rebate.

Mr Lvsnar: Are they penalised ? Mr Massey: Of course. The ordinary penalty applies if they don't pay on or before the 28th. This is a discount for cash. That is the nearest I can get to In further reply to the question of what loss, of revenue was involved in the proposal, Mr Massey said that the land tax last year amounted to about £l,700.000. One-tenth of that amount was £170,000. That was the possible loss to the Government. He thought, however, that perhaps the Government would Rain more than it would lose by handing back £170,000 to the payers of land tax. Mr Field asked whether those who did not pay within the specified time would lose the rebate and have to pay the penalty as well? Mr Massey: Certainly. I can't avoid that, but if we fail to pass this Bill into law, there will be no chance of a rebate for the man who has to pay, and he will still be penalised. Mr Kellett: What about the man who can't pay? Mr Massey: We don't want to meet trouble halfway. lam not going to cause hardship to any, if I can possibly avoid it. The Prime Minister proceeded to explain that there was in the Bill a subclause extending the benefit of the mam provision to meet the case of taxpayers, who, through some mistake, required to nave the due date of payment deferred. If owing to some mistake in the assessment of the tax, the due date was postponed by the Department, say to December 28th and the taxpayer paid on or before December 28th, the rebate would apply. .... , . . _ Mr Witty: Will this apply to income £&X AS well ? Mr Massey replied in the negative. Income tax, he said, was payable in February, and by that time he would have a much better idea of'the revenue than he had at present. He did not say that he was not going to do something for the income tax payers, but he could not make any promises. The Season for the Bill.

Asked by the Leader of the OPP?!"* tion to say what was the reason for the Bill, Mr Massey stated that the effect of the measure would be to make things easier for the taxpayer. Mr Wilford argued that if the taxpayer had not the money to pay the tax, he was not going to benefit. Mr Massey replied that the Bi" would make it easier for payers of land tax to finance if it became necessary for them to do so. Members'. Views. Mr E Newman Baid that he was eure the Bill would be much appreciated by the producers. At a time like the present it would make it easier for those who had to finance to get the money, and would mean that a great deal of money would be paid in land tax that but for. the concession would not have been paid. ; Mr Bartram said that it looked as if the Government was looking after the interest of the big man again. Ihe man who was going to benefit, it seemed, was the man who was in a position to pay without receiving any special inducement to do so. Mr McLood agreed with Mr Newman that the Bill would afford a great deal of relief to producers, and in regard to the criticism of the proposal, he pointed out that landowners were still subject to a*heavy war impost, which the Government had not seen its way to take off. ' Mr Horn said he thought the Bill was a step in the right direction; indeed, lie thought it scarcely went far enough. Payers should have till January 18th to pay their tax without the enforcement of the penalty. Mr Young said under the proposal a man could go to his banker, who would now be encouraged to lend him, at 7 per cent., the amount necessary to pay the tax. The owner would save 3 per cent, on this, whereas if the banker did not come to his assistance, he would lose the 10 per cent. He would, owing to this nrovision, be on a good wicket to the extent of 13 per cent. Mr Veitch said that landowners would under this proposal benefit to the detriment of other taxpayers, and he suggested that the Government were going too far. He thought there should be some discrimination in regard to the area of land held by taxpayers who were to benefit. Mr D. Jones said the Bill would be received by the farming community with a great deal of satisfaction. Some members had criticised the measure as if the farmer was getting something he was not entitled to. It must not, however, be forgotten that valuations had been increased during the last two or three years, and if the land in New Zealand was revalued to-day, it would be found that the 10 per cent. Rebate now suggested was only equivalent to the difference in valuation. No More Concessions at Present. Mr Massey said he was glad the Bill had received 6uch favourable comment from the House generally, and he felt it would be favourably received generally throughout the country, not only in the farming districts, but in the centres of population aa well, because it would be generally recognised that if the producers were not prosperous, it would be a very bad thing for the whole of the country. Mr Witty: Landowners are not always producers. Mr Massey: Ido not say that. There are business people who own blocks of land and who also pay land tax. The hon. member woula not say that the farmers were not producers. With regard to further concessions suggested, Mr Massey said he was re- ■ sponsible for the finance of the coun-]