TAXATION.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 5 September 1924, Page 3

TAXATION.

BILL BEFORE THE HOUSE. LAND TAX REDUCED 10 PER ' CENT. SLIGHTLY MORE OFF INCOME TAX. OTHER, CONCESSIONS PROPOSED;. (BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION .) WELLINGTON, Sept . 4. The Land Tax and Income'Tax Bill was introduced in the' House to-night by Governor’s message ah'ci read', a first time.

The Premier (Mr. W. E. Massey) said the Bill was the usual annual taxation measure, but a more important Bill would be brought down later on. This Bill authorised the collection of the land and income tax for the, next financial year, and although it did not fix the date from which it would operate, it gave the Finance Minister the necessary authority to fix the date from which land tax could be collected. '

The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. T. M. Wilford) asked if there was any alteration in the schedule/

Mr. Massey replied that there was practically no alteration in the ordinary clauses of the Bill. It was a very short measure, containing two operative clauses. It proposed to reduce the land tax by 10 per cent., but to reduce the income tax by 13 1-3 per cent. A reduction of 20 per cent, had been made in the income tax last year, and the present proposal increased the reduction to 33 1-3 per cent. He hoped to be able to make a further reduction as the session went on.

Mr. Massey added that he proposed to ask Parliament, and he hoped they would agree to the proposal, to reduce the amusement tax by ■ approximately £45,000, which was quite a substantial reduction. He would like to wipe out the whole tax, but he was not prepared to do it yet, for he did not think they could afford to do it this year.

Mr. Massey said he also desired to reduce the duty on tobacco. That would require more formal ceremony than the present Bill/and would require three months’ notice to be given. There Was’ no provision for that in the present Bill; he was merely intimating what he hoped td"do.' The reduction in the tobacco duty would be little less thkn £IOO,OOO, so far as' he was able 'to judge, and would be bn cut and'plug tobacco, but not on cigarettes of cigarette tobacco.T"Personally', 1 he was 1 ' hot a ' smoker, but he thought' smokers should participate, in any' reductions they could make. They were at least making a good commencement in getting the heavy duty off tobacco, and if they could only go on making thesb reductions for another year or tb : o taxation would soon'be less oppressive. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. T. M. Wilford) askecl if there, was aiiything in the Bill about company 'taxation*,. • ! : Mr. ' Massey replied that there was no such provision The taxation commission recommendedthat company taxation should ' riot' b ! e interfered with for tiyo, years, - but he, would' I ''hot say tnere would. not* be something dealing with that subject in the next Bill. The Leader of the ' Labour 'Party (Mr. H. E. Holland) asked what would be the, aggregate 1 amount of the reductions. •

The Premier replied that the reduction in land tax ' would be approximately £135,000. v ’The' House would recollect that Bi substantial dectea.se was made, in land tax last year; ! : This year a substantial reduction'"would 'be made in income tax,' which would amount to about £583,000'. 'ln the Budget he had stated that he hoped to ask Parliament to reduce, taxation by £1.000,000, and the proposals in this Bill would mean reductions amounting to, about : £900,000. , . , .

Air. 0. Hawkoii (Egmont) asked if there was any relief to mortgagors Mr. Massey: “Not in this Bill.”' Mr. Holland remarked that the reductions would not benefit the small man.

Air Alassey replied that thev would benefit the small man.

Mr. Holland said that when the reduction 'of 10 per cent, was worked out on the tables used bv the Taxation Commissioner it would be seen that the land tax reductions would only benefit those fairly well to do in the matter of land ownership. The income tax' reductions would simply be a ' gift to those well able to; hear their share of taxation. When the reducticns in indirect taxation were placed alongside the reductions in direct taxation the benefit to be seen would be infinitesimal as compared to the benefits conferrd on wealthy land-owners and income tax payers. The Labour Urty would oppose such inductions, because they did not think thev were justified. “

, ' T - M £S°mbs (Lyttelton) said the Labour Party would oppose the proposals m the House at every stage. , ■. ,1 ‘- Harry (Auckland Centra) interjected that this was only a pieliminary spar. The Premier retorted that ho not want any threats. There was a ' Vi '2°"{..' t r . tll 7 "’ c ' c ‘ pressed too hard. Mr. McCombs: Very well, take the way out.

Mr. Massey: I will not forget that < am not in raid to take the way out llns is no idle threat.

Mr. McCombs: We accept vour challenge. Replying to Mr. Holland. Air Massey asked what Mr. Holland knew about- people on the land. Deputations of country settlers had come to him and the Minister for Lands saviim they were in the greatest difficulty in carrying on. that they were not able Jo pay their rates, and could not pav land tax Fnder the present circumstances the land tax was being paid bv people who ipade no profit from their land last- vear.

Ah. Massey added that this did not mean that the country was not prosP p ln r-A r,™ oan * o witll ail export value of £00,000.000 he knew it was prosperous. He would like to think that »he prices of nur products would remain at the present high level, because that would suit us very 'w<dl put he could not- help thinkino- that the time might come when "prices would fall. Supposing that prices in nnn'^ ,IPXt e ' v Vf, ars foil from £do ono.ooo to £-10.000.nn0. where were we going to find ourselves with the present high level of taxation if that dron took place? We would not bo able to earry the -present- load of taxation and he wanted to give the House an opportunity to reduce it. They had beard a lot about the mr aW ]r Sa ar ' es Pubhc servants. said Air. Massey, but- be would like to remind the House that the scale of

|salaries and the. increases on account of reclassification would 'be nearly £400,000 this year. It could not he said that they were not- doing the right thing to public servants. Their salaries had been going up ever since the cut ’ was made three years a <r o. and lie believed they v were better off than they were before the war. That was the position as it appeared to him It was his duty to ask the- House to mu Ce^f atlon ' anrt he was doing it. Ihe Bill was read a, first time.