LAND TAX

Dominion, Volume 23, Issue 6, 2 October 1929, Page 12

LAND TAX

Sir, —A great deal has been written about land tax, the proposed graduation of which has caused such an outcry. I would like to point out a case which should appeal to . Sir Joseph Ward if he has any consideraiton for the small workr Ing farmers at all. Likewise the Laboar members, whose cry has always been for the working farmer against the “wool king.” Here is a family of four brothers having purchased a property of 3900 acres, second class land with a heavy yearly wage bill keeping the country free from manuka, scrub, and second growth, unimproved value being £20,500. The land tax last year was £l6O. and under the new proposed tax will increase £lOO or more.

Now, sir, if this property were held individually the brothers would be exempt from taxation, as in the scale they would come under they could deduct the amount of mortgages. It seems that justice will not be done to families working together. I suppose the Prime Minister will say they have the remedy in their own hands by splitting up and working separately. This may sound easy, but is not always practicable. Are they to go to the expense of survey and legal costs of transfer to individual members? Surely it is hardly a fair deal to penalise this family because they wish to work together. The brothers all live and work on the property with no outside sources of revenue. Their neighbours are working similar land in 800 to 1000acre blocks, and are paying Uttle or no land taxation, so why single out the family? The Prime Minister gays only 1400 farmers will be affected. How many of this 1400 will be in a similar position to the above?

What is going to happen this coming season in cases like this, with prospects for wool and meat prices falling 25 per cent.? I appeal to the Prime Minister to insert a clause in his Bill protecting a partnership like this from the heavy graduated tax. This could be done by letting each and every partner swear an affidavit that they hold equal shares. The crux of the position is this: The country wants the small working farmer —the brothers hold individually £5125 of unimproved value, so why should they be singled out to pay this heavy tax, while their neighbours get off with a nominal amount? Is this justice? I appeal to all members of Parliament, Labour members especially, to see that the right thing is done by these family partnerships and to have the assessment made individually and not collectively.— I am, etc., ONE OF THE BROTHERS Wanganui, September 27.