REVENUE LOST.

Grey River Argus, 22 July 1926, Page 6

REVENUE LOST.

BY GIFTS TO THE WEALTHY. Speaking- on the Budget, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. H. E. Holland, M.P., said;—. We have lost an immense amount of revenue as a result of these reductions, and to-day we have wealthy land-owners in this country who are not paying a penny income-tax, notwithstanding that thei r incomes run from up to £lO,OOO a year and over. An Hon Member: They pay land tax. Mr. Holland They pay landtax, but after they have paid landtax some of them have incomes running up to £lO,OOO and over, and they do not pay a penny income-tax. Because they do- not pay, the cost of running the country has to be distributed ove r the rank and file of the people, who are not in nearly so good a position to pay as these wealthy men. We have made immense income tax reductions. I have not tim e to go into the details, but if we base our figures on the first year in which the tax-reducing legislation was introduc-ed—l92l-22—we shall find that, while our total assessable incomes have increased by nearly 28 millions since that year, we have made tax reductions in the same period amounting to well over 12} millions. And who reaped the benefit of those remissions? There is not a small fanner in this House w’ho could stand up and say that he got any real benefit out of the tax-reductions.

An Hon. Member: Every one of them did. Mr. Holland: We will see. We will tak e the 1921-22 Act, which relieved the land-owner of ' the obligation to pay income-tax. What- small farmer in thi s House got any benefit out of that? I do not hear anybody answer with enthusiasm that he did. There is no answer. What was the position ? There were 84,899 rural holdings, and 54,715 land-tax payers; and of those 84,899 holders of rural land there were only 4,602 who paid income tax, indivi duals, not companies—who received £21,000 between them in income-tax remissions, an average of over £3,500 each. There were six others who received £12.916 between them, an average of £2,152 each. There were 47 whose remissions averaged £570 each ; there were 55 with an average of £452; and there were 2565 whose aver age relief was £6 It worked out that 256 of these taxpayers received remissions totalling £116,389: that is, 5 per cent of the taxpayers rei ceived benefits amounting to 50 per cent of the total relief; 25,677 received remissions totalling £17,701 and the remissions of 1199 totalled £179,276. That is one illustration, showing that it was the big man on the land who got the benefit of thh reduction. 1 now come to the Land fax (Annual) Bill of 1923. How did the small man benefit there? If he had £lOOO taxable balance, he got 8s relief; £3OOO, 17s 6d; £lO,OOO, a little over £3; £50,000 £7l 19s 6d; £lOO,OOO £247; £135,000, £443. These figures again demonstrate that the wealthy land-owners reaped the benefit of the land-tax reductions. In 1924 there were two reductions, and under the legislation of this year the income-tax payer with an income of £4OO receiv'd remissions amounting to £6 13s 4d on £lOOO the remission was £25; on £5OOO, £402; on £lO,OOO £1222. This is another example of how the wealthy benefited by the remissions Then, again, take the 1922 income-tax reductions from another viewpoint. In this year th e reductions amounted to £764,386 as against the previous year. There were 36,091 taxpayers and 165 ■»f these—some of whom were persons, some were firms and some were comoanies—took £427,656, and the balance of £336,730 was distributed between nearly 36,000 others; again '•hewing that it was the big concerns that got the benefit. In 1T724, £1,89U. 766 was remitted as against the previous year and of that amount £1,162,821—0r 61| per cent—went to 210 taxpayers. In last year’s tax re duction £150,000 was given back to the taxpayers, and out of som e 36,000 taxpayers there were 28 whose remis sions totalled Twenty-eight tax-payers took nearly half the □ mount of the remissions, while the i balance was divided among neailj--36,000 taxpayers. There has been a tendency to reduce taxation to the wealthy ever since this Government came into power—to> reduce taxation to the wealthy anj load it up against ‘he rank and file of the people. In 1918 out of every £lOO tax collected £29 3s 7d came from th e Customs and Excise and £45 10s lOd from the income tax. Now we find the position complete ly reversed. In 1925, out of every £lOO tax collected £52 8s came from Customs and Excise and only £2l 12s from income tax. At this stage I want to digress to make u protest. The Minister of Internal Affairs in his annua] report, laid before the House the other 'day, indicated that the tabulated land and income-tax statistics are not to be prepared annually, and he predicted an interval of between two or three vears before thev arc again done. 1 want to say that the House will be very unwise if it ugrees to any interference with the annua] preparation and presentation •n the land and income tax statistics. Those tabulated statistics ought to- be up-to-date and available for members <jf ihe House.