FARMERS’ VIEW CONTESTED

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27089, 11 July 1953, Page 8

FARMERS’ VIEW CONTESTED

CLAIM “ARRANT NONSENSE”

STATEMENT BY MR R. H. MCDONALD

“It is arrant nonsense for Federated Farmers’ leaders to claim that farmers’ livestock is not taxed in exactly the same way as stocks belonging to other sections of the business community. Thtey are no worse off,” said Mr R. H. McDonald, secretary of the Canterbury District Trades Council, in reply to Mr S. D. Reeves, Dominion vice-president of Federated Farmers, yesterday.

“What Mr Reeves prefers to ignore is that neither he nor any other farmer will consider his livestock as capital when he is buying at more than the standard value,” Mr McDonald said. “At that time Mr Reeves and thousands of other farmers are busy writing their livestock values down to the standard value (the reduction for sheep being as much as £4 a head in some cases) and are obtaining income tax exemption for<what they call a loss. Farmers commencing business are in an especially favoured position in their first year when they are establishing a new flock or herd. In that year there are not many who will record having received much in the way of income at all, and some may even show a ‘loss.’ This results in income tax concessions being gained and in liability for income tax being deferred until the farmer sells his stock or dies.

“I am open to an alternative conviction on this question, but statements issued by representatives of Federated Farmers make their case very hard to believe, said Mr McDonald. “At the a ? °f Preparing this statement, Mr A. L. Wheeler is discussing this very issue at a meeting of Federated Farm- « Christchurch. If the case is so sound it would have been timely and appropriate to have invited me to meeting. My own organisation has, in the past, met farmers’ representatives at its meetings. I could no more ably show the weaknesses in the argument than Mr Reeves did when he said 'I feel sure that Mr McDonald would not like to see the personal savings of trade unionists in the Post Office Savings to a ca P ital ‘ax . . . <as applied to farmers’ livestock).’ I for one would not object to paying income tax on such savings if for every £ll invested, the Post Office will JTA 1 ® V up £3 or m °re. This is the ht tU v a i cor ,°'! a ry to the system sought by Federated Farmers, and it would be dishonest to take advantage of it.”