TAX BILL.

Press, Volume LVIII, Issue 17585, 14 October 1922, Page 9

TAX BILL.

THE COMMITTEE STAGE. ÜBBIDBED RffiSSS ASSOCIAKOK *KfO*SS» " WELLINGTON, October 13. This afternoon the House of Representatives went into Committee cn tb# Land and Income Tax'Bill. Mr McCollum said tho number of people who would benefit by the repeal •> of the super-tax was small, and be asfccd whether tho Prime Minister wart wis© in making this oonoeMion at Bj time when ho was so much in need of money. w . _ . • Mr Holland said the Labour Party was against tli©' repeal of the guper-MWt which was rea.ly a concession to the big landed estates. If the House could TOta on the issue frwly, he had uq doubt ito would say that concessions efaouldapply only to small men. Sir Massey claimed that ™ ounce#- . sion would not benefit a particular class, hut would-benefit the whol© community. Nearly a million of money was being riven back to the people and nghtlyt so, because no country oould prOTpor if it was too heavily taxed. Ovotf 100,000 pcoplo would benefit directly by ; the remission of taxation, but iVwoult* go far beyond; that; it would a®ist toe , whole community. Mr MoComba contended that it ww not the uwra but th© holders of lasut who would benefit by tho concession. After further Mr Holland, moved to amend clause 2 in the dixeotion of limiting the reroisßion of te*ar tion to taxpayers whose taxable balance : of rural lands did not exceed £IO,OOO. On a division, the amendment wasy»jected by 51 votes to 13. Mr MeOallum tlien moved that the , remission should not apply to ©states of over £IO,OOO in value. On a division, tho amendment w»l lost by 42 votes to 21. The clause then passed. At clause 5, providing for the rami*' sion of super income tax, Ms; Hoßsjld again protested that the conce&sioa would mean nothing to email taxpayers, but to men and companies with big • incomes it would mean a gift of h»tt* dreds of thousands of pounds. - r Mr Holland called for & dmSwon ott,. clause 5, specifying the rates ofiocootft . tax to be levied. The clause was retained by 69 T»tw to 7. - ; . ;:i. On clause 12, reducing income* tax cm - foreign insurance companies from 10 to - 5 percent., < ■■ v .. - ■ Mr Sidey complained that it placing local companies at a diassdfaetago. Th© Prime Minister replied that it tlie concession mis not granted, great.. i loss would accrue to New Zealand, M , reinsurance business would simply b& arranged in London. Mr Wilford urged that there ehowldi not be such disparity between rodwotionß in the income tax imposed «a foreign insurance companies, sod Unfe on'other companies. ■ , Mr D. Jones pointed oai that th« high tax on foreign companies aiwply* meant higher rates of ins wane©. liS». would urge' how«vcr, that the cession should not apply to {nitfCTflaea r contracts already made on the cunMsA . season's produce. „ 1 Mr Lysnar said he thought tho chat#' ' was useful as tending to, keep down ia* • surance rates by means of foreign corn- " 1 petition. »' ' ui ti Th© Prime Minister said he was «<js '|3 fully satisfied with the clause, ttso) << would liJca to look further into w» matter. ' ~ , h 1 > i The elapse was paewtl uncmendted. On clause 14 (special pnmedqn' U8 to business carried on by bsisbond sad wife), Mr Wilford. drew attention to i the many Chinese partmanhmb vMA were making large i>roflta sad paying , litt'e, if any, income tax,. , \ f; The Priroo Minister said he wettia #ft- j, quire into the matter, end pTOgrdti *. was reported on tho Bill. , 1 ,