Untitled

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 5235, 25 August 1891, Page 2

In reference to the fairness of the new scheme of taxation all round the New Zealand Herald gives an example. A man comes here with £5000 and invests it in land. He purchases that land, say, from the Government, and pays the money into the Treasury. He is immediately called upon to pay £2] 16s 8d per annum in taxation. He cannot make more than 5 per cent, out of his (and, and he will have to pay the tax before he begins to cultivate, and years before ha can obtain any return at all. If another man puts £5000 in the bank at deposit he will have £250 certain without trouble or risk, and he will not have to pay a penny towards the new taxation. He is exempt from income tax and land tax. Such instances of inequality might be multiplied by the score. We cite the above to show the inequality, and also how destructive the new fixation must bo to the industry which above all others ought to be encouraged, that of agriculture. The difference has been made because the dominant party coLsider tbe cultivator of the soil a " social pjst." We all know that Mr Henry Georgeisinfavor of aland tax, but it cannot be shown Jrom his works that he advocates a land tax with a protective tariff, that he advocates a heavy tax on improvements, that he advocates a differentiating income tax along with a land tax. All these things he his declared against. Messrs Mills and Fawaett insisted on taxation being in proportion to a man's means. The Government scheme is in absolute violation of this, as we have shown by the instanoe above quoted. As to the principle of graduation, it is no doubt in operation in the" succession duties, but it is expressly condemned by Mills as applied to an income tax. Mr Earnshaw spoke for his party, and not only for himself, and told the House what "we" intended to do, and that was to extirpate the " social pests." Further, he said if this Ministry did not do the work, they would put in office another Ministry who would. It is curious, too, if this taxation is so juat and fair, how nobody out of New Zealand seems to see it. The Economist, of London, the first of statistical and economical journals, speaks of it as being perilously near confiscation. The Australian papers simply look on in amazement.