HUMOURS OF LEGISLATION.

Evening Post, Volume LVIII, Issue 140, 11 December 1899, Page 2

HUMOURS OF LEGISLATION.

A coi respondent, Mr. IT. L. Macliell, pends us the following criticism of the woikiug of tho Land and Income Tax Acts: — Thomas C.ulylo u^ed to say that the British Isles contained ionic 30,000,000 inhabitants mostly fool* ! Really, it would t'mii that our legislators proceed on some Mich assumption as regards New Zealand. Tho Native Land Validation of Titles 1893 brimmed with humour. There was a wild, fantastic spirit, a debonnair, go-as-you-please style about it, that was charming. But that Act did not touch the pockets of the people. Behold the Land and Income Tax Act of 1891 and its amendments — the patches in the seat of its trousers necessitated by fair hard sitting upon the taxpayer. Such an Act could never have been. 1 parsed butfqr the sheer ignorance of tho taxpayer, foV surely he cannot be. indifferent. Well, the policy of this Act is to make the land pay all taxes, to encourage small holdings and discourage large estates and absenteeism. The land H all assessed at its estimated capital value, and an annual tax of so much in the pound upon such capital value is charged. Everyone interested or concerned in the estate is made liable for the tax — and it makes no difference whether the land is producing income or not. This may be all well and good — but now comes the strange part. A.s must DO well known, a groat deal of land is the subject of trubts declared by wills or marriage settlements. A testator leaves his estates to trustees upon trust, either to, pay his widow the income or an annuity during her life, and at her death the capital to be drvided among his children. Down comes the tax, and, tatally disregarding all rights of widow and children as botw/een themselves, sweeps away from the land all that by law is assessed thereon. But no provision whatever is made by tho Act fox the apportionment of tho tux as between the widow who takes the income or an annuity and the children who follow her ; and if the widow is given an annuity only, no provision is made for. apportioning the tax between , her and those entitled to th 6 remainder t>f the income. Say the -land is "producing' 1 little or no income : should the ( .widow pay • all the tax? This would b<r most unfair. Say tho land is producing a large income compared with, its capital valxie, should the children bear the tax'/ Who is to sayY The books- tell us that the Commons represent the power of the country, the Lords its wisdom, and the Sovereign its goodness. Where is the wisdom and goodness displayed here? It is all power — might is right. Then, again, in addition to the ordinary tax on^land, there is also imposed a Graduated Tax — i.e., a tax which is not proportionate to £he value of the land — e.g., under £10,000, in the £ ; under £30,000, fd in the JEJ ; under £90,000, l^d in the £ ; exceeding £210,000 2d. But although a person assessed to ordinary tax may deduct mortgages to be assessed on the balance, no suoh deduction is allowed as regards graduated tax. So that although a man's 'and may be weighted with mortgages exceeding its value, he is still liable to graduated tax ; and this is no mere speculative theory — the Government has actually collected such «a tax on land where the mortgages exceeded the value of the land by some thousands of pounds. Separate provisions are mad© for tax on mortgage moneys charged on land, but no provision is made for Tendering such mortgages primarily liable for any part of the graduated tax on the land, which is what should in justice be done. If any person has been absent from the colony for threo years the graduated tax is increased by 20 per cent. That is to say, the Government is anxious, and rightly so, that the New Zealander shall never have to say of his country what Pat did of Ireland— /' Absentees, is it ye say? Me poor countree swarms wid 'em!" Tho Acb is precise enough as between the Government and the tax-payer— the most elaborate provisions are mado for sweeping in all that' can be laid hands on — but gloriously vague when it is a question of the rights and liabilities, as between themselves, of the taxpayers. It may be right enough to exonerate the small estates, and to heavily tax tno large ones, but there is a limit to this sort of thing. It is .not right to pub large estates to tha expense of lawyers' opinions, and perhaps JawsuiCS, to ascertain the law, ]ust because the legislators deliberately shirk their duty. Is a Government merely a band of .brigands led on by a bold and daring chieftain who robs the rich and is lavish in gifts to the poor?— Robin Hood and his merry men? There is such a gay and festive, not to say recklessj spirit in this sort of rule that, much ns we may admii^e it. in the abstract, brilliant and heroic even* as it may be, staunch and true as the chief may be to his band, loyal and devoted as they may be to him — wo are competed to say : "C'est magnifique, mais cc n'esf pas la guerre." — It's all very fine, but it's not statesmanship 1