GRADUATED LAND TAX

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 122, 19 November 1931, Page 8

GRADUATED LAND TAX

REPLY TO PRIME MINISTER

SPEECH BY MR. HOLLAND

(By Telegraph.—Presa Association.) INVERCARGILL, 18th Nov. 1 An audience which filled the Civic Theatre to overflowing gave the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. H. E. Holland, a most attentive hearing when he outlined the policy of the Labour Party this evening. A vote of confidence in the Labour Party was carried enthusiastically. Mr. Holland referred to the Prime Minister's declaration of the previous evening at Rangiora, in which ha said Mr. Forbes attempted to justify the abolition of the graduated land tax with the declaration that "the Government has to lay the taxation burden equally on those who pay." He asked how the Prime Minister could reconcile his present utterazices with actual facts. When the graduated land tax was placed on the Statute Book, its purpose was to minimise land aggregation, and if the principle had been carried to its logical .conclusion it would have been more effective. In 1928 the whole United Party was enthusiastic in its support of the graduated land tax, and it was not until an unconditional surrender to the Reform Party had been made that the sudden decision was arrived at to abolish the graduated tax and retain the flat rate tax.. The whole of the'benefits resulting from the abolition, of the graduated land tax would go to the big landholders, and to no one else, as was proved by the actual figures. A landholder with a taxable balance of £2000 would bo benefited to the extent of Ss 4d, while a taxable balance of £5000 would only command a benefit of &'i 3_s id. There was a different story in regard to the larger landholders. The owner of a taxable balance of £20,000 would benefit to the extent of nearly £80, while a taxable balance of £100,000 would receive a remission of £2062. In the case of a taxable balance of £120,000 the relief would amount to nearly £3000, Mr. Forbes's claim was that the large landholder had to draw on his reserves to pay his taxes, but the fact remained that -the big landholder stood to make a full recovery by any material increase in the price of wool. "While Mr. Forbes was insisting that this class of landholder must be saved from any necessity to use his reserves in. meeting his taxation liabilities, he was refusing to permit relief work to be given to any wage worker until the whole of his reserves, in the form of savings bank deposits or other monetary savings, had been used up. There was a marked difference between the treatment meted out to the large landholder on the one hand and the working farmer and wage-earner on the other hand. Referring to Mr. Forbes's statements affecting the Coalition, Mr. Holland said that on Mr. Coates's own showing it was not until their policy had been accepted by the Forbes Government that the Reform Party agreed to the fusion arrangement. There was no truth whatever in the suggestion that Mr, Forbes had at any time approached the Labour Party with a request for either coalition or co-operation. He was making no complaint in this respect, but could not help expressing his amazement that the Prime Minister should seek to convey, information of that nature. •