TAXATION COMMISSION

Gisborne Times, Volume LX, Issue 9800, 9 May 1924, Page 6

TAXATION COMMISSION

SITTING AT AUCKLAND

AUCKLAND, May 8. The Taxation Commission sat toj ry Haddow, barrister and solicitor, said lie objected to the land tux because it did not tux the individunl refolding to his anility to pay; because it taxed the man who had no me nc.v to pay, and often actually on debts” he owed; because it was an ... bitrarv tax on one class of propel t\and because of the difficulty in collectin-'. Tlie income tax should be reI'arded in the light of a family tax, allov.au:".' being made for other adult members of the family. the income or companies should be treated in tut same way as persons. A person m firm c-ould not compete on level term;, with a company if a.company paid nr income tax. No difference should be made in the taxation of incomes from debentures and from other sources. So that earned and unearned incomes could easily he grafted, thcio might he added a third-class suggested'’by Hartly Withers, income produced by •nhonted wealth hv gift. „ ' Tier her t S. Hawkins, Tanner, ot Hamilton, and director of the Farmers’ Auctioneering Co., said that the company had to increase its nett profit by 35 per cent, to provide foi Government taxation. The company liad three earning departments —two oil a commission basis —and the earnings couldn’t be increased without increasing the. rates of commission. Without substantial relief the company could not carry on indefinitely Under a nominal rate of taxation the company was able to pay its way and build up a very modest reserve of £40,200 out of profits in twelve years but the higher the tax had gone the reserve hud gradually decreased until the amount had actually ceased, in spite of the abnormally good trading conditions before the depression of”l921 the slump had turned a nett profit of nearly £6OOO to a substantial loss. In 1021, the net profit was £29,852 and the taxation .£27,309; in 1022 there was a loss of £1383, the taxation being £1519 and last year’s profit was .-£207 and the taxation v.a,--, £ll-13. No dividends were paid during the last two years. As regards his own taxation as’ a farmer his land tax on 795 acres in 1912 was £4 13s 41 and on 709 acres in 1920 £ll6 4s. In addition, income tax had been levied oil portions of his gross income, without reference to his net income. H is not income for the past four years had amounted to £235 and he had, paid £235 in taxation. George Cuhh, farmer, of Puriri, urged tlx' abolition of the land tax. Me paid £2(55 6s Id to the Thames Countv Council as rates and taxes, and £lOl m land tax on a farm which carried 50 dairy cows. The Hon. George FowJds gave evidence advocating the gradual increase of land taxation until values, apart from improvements, ceased to have any selling value and until the whole economic rent went to the common-’ ity. Tie asserted that customs duties pressed most heavily on the poor. The sittings were adjourned.