TAXATION
TO BE REDUCED. BILL READ A THIRD TIME, STATEMENT BY PREMIER.
(ay TKM'UftAPH —PRESS association. I WELLINGTON, Sept. 30. The proposed reductions in taxation were discussed at length when 'the House went into. committee to-day on the annual Land and Income Tax Bill. The Leader of “the Opposition (Mr T. M. Wilford) said the position of the Liberal Party was that they felt that there -was no justification for a reduction of income tax on higher incomes nbr relief to land taxpayers whose values soar up into higher grades. They did not propose to “stonewall” the Bill, but they would move amendments which would give relief to small men and test the feeling of the House in that way. They admitted there were some companies which deserved relief, and he suggested that company taxation should be ’made uniform with the taxation on debentures.
The Leader of the Labour Party (Mr H. E. Holland) said the Labour Party was utterly opposed to the reductions in taxation proposed in this Bill until there had been a readjustment of public service salaries. They opposed the reductions as a whole, but if there were to be reductions then they should apply only to those who neede’d them. In any case, if they succeeded in confining them to those who needed relief they would be so small as to amount to very little per individual. For this reason, it could not be said that by opposing these reductions they' were, opposing the small farmer.. Mr T. K. Sidey (Dunedin South) declared that the proposal in the Bill as it came back from the Public Accounts Committee that mortgagors should get further relief to the' extent or o per cent was a premium to persons to get mortgages on their properties, and so evade paying land tax. this policy was dead against the evidence given by the Commissioner of -*• hpf°i’e the Taxation Commission. Ihe Hon. C. J. Parr scouted the suggestion that landowners would mortgage their properties simply to evade paying land tax. Any ‘ such wholesale system of defrauding, the taxation Department was absurd. The sum of £65,000 which would be lost to the revenue was a mere bagatelle in a Budget of £28,000,000. Mr H. T. Armstrong (Christchurch East) said income tax- provided 24 per cent of the revenue last year, as against 45 per cent in 1918. On the ff Customs taxation, 1 which icn % er cent be revenue in 1918, yielded 42.61 per cent last year. he mass of the people were constantly on the verge of poverty. The Hon. W. Nos worthy: You are 1 your own country ’ Mr Armstrong: This is God’s own country, but it’s the devil’s own crowd time 1S m charge of {t at the present
t Hawken (Egmont) said the Labour Party had no intention of reducing taxation. o™ M u /’ McCombs (Lyttelton) said smaH farmers would not get an advanta,_,e to the extent of a single penny tro “ th « proposal in the Bill! lhe Premier (Mr. W F Massev) said the workers of the Dominion were better paid than the workers in any other part of the world and he was proud of the fact. The Taxation Commission had urged a reduction in taxa tion as rapidly as possible. By our system of. taxation we had been penalising industry and calling", upon it to pay nioie than it was able to pay and consequently some industries had suffered. “I am doubtful,” continued the Brenner, “whether there will be many more opportunities for reductions in taxation. There is an opportunity to do so now, but it is rapidly passing away, lhe expenditure is increasing very rapidly, and the clamour for more expenditure is worse than I have ever known it before.”
Mr. Massey pointed out that New Zealand gave higher exemption of income tax than other countries, and the smaller man paid les s than he would anywhere else in the Empire. It was also proposed to exempt mortgages to an increasing extent. The Government had donejill it could for the small man, and if there was anything further that could he done by way of reduced taxation it would be done. “But you cannot take anything from nothing if he is paying Customs taxation,” added Mr. Massey. As far as last year was concerned there was an important increase in Customs revenue, but it was not - from articles bought or paid for by the small man, but from motor-cars up to £IOOO each and other forms of luxuries such as silks and satins that were imported in large quantities. In reducing taxation as they proposed they were only doing their duty, added the Premier. If they were not careful they' might have to increase taxation again. The discussion was continued till about mignight, when the first clause was passed. The remainder of the clauses were also passed, and then the debate was resumed on the schedule. In * the first part of the schedule Mr. Wilford moved an amendment to the effect that no one with land of an unimproved value of over £IO,OOO should participate in the reduction of 5 per cent, in land tax proposed in the Bill. The chairman of committees ruled that the amendment imposed additional taxation, and was therefore out of order. The Speaker’s ruling was taken on the point, and he ruled the amendment out of order.
Paragraph 3 of the schedule was then challenged by Mr. Holland, hut on a division it was agreed to by 40 votes to 30.
Amendments moved in the second part of the schedule to limit the reductions of income tax were, in accordance with the Speaker’s decision, ruled out of order by the chairman and , the schedule was passed unamended. The Bill was read a third time and passed.
(By Telegraph.—Special to Star.) WELLINGTON, Sept. 30. Mr. O. J. Hawken (the member for Egmont), having patiently listened to a large number of critical speeches on the Government’s taxing Bill, told the .House to-day that it looked as if there would be a lot of amendments all to the same effect. The Labour Party had no intention of reducing taxation; its intention was to use the money to increase the pay of civil servants. Nor did the Liberals propose to reduce taxation. Their object was apparently the same as that of the Labour Party. The Hon. Nosworthy : They are all one. Mr. Hawken: The House should adjourn for a few minutes to allow them to confer. Mr. Holland: "There is no proposal before the House. v Mr. Hawken: We shall have - plenty presently. What does this opposition to taxation mean?, The Liberals were
just backing up the Labour plank,; namely, the destruction of capital. (Liberal laughter.) SOME LIBER ALS VOTE WITH T GOVERNMENT. (By Telegraph.—Special to the Star.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 1. Amendments proposed ‘ bjv the Opposition in the annual taxing -Bill' having been ruled out of order, the House was afforded iiQ chance of dividing on questions ' which would have reduced the Government’s majority to a narrow margin. Several Liberals being strongly in support of some reduction in taxation voted with the Government on Mr. Holland’s amendment, these being Messrs. Atmore, Buddo, Corrigan, de la PerreUe and Forbes, while Mr. F. J. Rolleston voted against the Government. When the Bill was being read a third time the Premier commented on the unexpected accession of strength, remarking: “As for those Liberals who voted with us, J welcome them and hope they will vote with us on future occasions, and if an invitation is of any use we shall he glad to find seats for them permanently on this side of the House.’’ (Labour members: Hqar, Hear). “I was satisfied,” added the Premier, “I had a majority.” Mr. Wilford: “A Majority of one.” Mr. Massey: “One is as good as ai thousand.”
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HAWST19241001.2.49
Bibliographic details
Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 1 October 1924, Page 5
Word Count
1,306TAXATION Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 1 October 1924, Page 5
Using This Item
Stuff Ltd is the copyright owner for the Hawera Star. You can reproduce in-copyright material from this newspaper for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 3.0 New Zealand licence. This newspaper is not available for commercial use without the consent of Stuff Ltd. For advice on reproduction of out-of-copyright material from this newspaper, please refer to the Copyright guide.