INCREASED TAXATION

Hawera Star, Volume XLIX, 15 August 1929, Page 9

INCREASED TAXATION

BUDGET PROPOSALS.

FARMERS’ UNION PROTEST. SOUTH TARANAKT DISCUSSION. I'Jie receipt by the South Taranaki Executive of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union of a circular from the Dominion Executive containing extracts from the -budget relating to Hie proposed extra taxation was the reason tor a special meeting of the local executive being held to-day to discuss the question. The Dominion secretary asked that the matter be brought before the executive as early as possible. It was expected that the debate on the Budget. would last. a. fortnight, and, as the making up of the deficit of £577,252, seems to have been trust on the shoulders of the fanning community only, it was desirable to make any necessary protest during tins debate.

After .several speakers had put forward their views on the subject, the following resolution was unanimously carried: “That this special meeting of the South Taranaki Provincial Executive of the Farmers’ Union strongly protests against the proposed amendments of land and income tax as throwing an inequitable burden on the farming community, and it is considered that other avenues should be ■explored, to Ida lance t-liis deficit-, and this meeting suggests that before further increasing the burden of taxation some drastic effort should first bo made to curtail the ever increasing costs of Government administration.” Members present at the meeting were Messrs E. J. Betts (president), E. J. Booth. J. A: Pettigrew, A. T. Sulzberger, J. P. Marx, J. Cocker, W. T. Seed. 0. {Robertson, L. J. Bell, H. Thrush, A. L Jennings and H. I. Crocker. Mi 1 IV. Jones, a member of the North Auckland Executive, was also present. The chairman asked for a free discussion, remarking- that, the Government was always advising people to “get on the land” and now it proposed to load the industry severely and undid v. J

Mr J. Cocker said the executive should protest very strongly on behalf ’of the whole farming community. Re--1 furring to the large land holders, ho said that there were many whose land could only be farmed in large areas, because it was hard of access and would carry perhaps only one sheep to five acres. It was impossible in many cases to cut it up and lie believed many men whose land value was, say £28,000, who were making very little out of the land and they would be taxed very heavily, if the exemption was lowered. Regarding primage, he said that no one could deny that a large proportion, probably 75 per cent., was paid by farmers and they were therefore bearing- the whole brunt of the positron. Merchants in the towns could pass on the extra taxation and would, he feared, in some cases use it as an excuse to get further profits. But the farmer could not pass on any increase in taxation. Many large city coirccrns were, he understood, not to be included in the extra taxation and it iwas right that farmers should protest against

having to pay more duty than any others, lie said their clothes, their implements, requisites, and nearly everything they possessed and used, were subject to the increased primage, and the farmers would also have to pay the super tax. Mr .T. P. Marx said he had seen no suggestion to decrease departmental expenditure, which increased yearly and ho considered something should be done in this direction before calling for further taxation. There was no doubt farmers would be called on to pay the bulk of (he taxation proposed. Tiny should call on their representatives to see if there were no means of reducing this expenditure. Mr Jennings said he did not believe in the farmer paying Income tax, ibut he added he actually did pay, perhaps not on farming, but rather on investments made outside. It was right to get at the big men, but not both ways. Mr Cocker said that there should, in considering men with large areas be a discrimination between the big men holding large areas with only a few 'working on them and the man who held much land on which lie had perhaps forty families of share-milkers. Where men wore making the utmost use of the land they should not be unduly taxed.

With income tax there was exemption for families and the same thing, hr considered, should apply to land. Mr W. Jones said that the Government must have the money and that where a man made an income he should give a proportion to the 'State, it was not, however, right for a man to be liandcapped 'because lie was .a good farmer and getting the utmost out of the land. The proposal to impose land and income tax on the farmer could only be described as vicious. Farmers did not object to special privileges, but they did object to such handicaps.

Very often a man having to pay land tax had simply to increase liis over-

draft to meet the call for if a, season were bad, lie might be worse off than at the beginning of the year. Primage, he said, was a direct tax on poverty. It hit the small people worst and therefore made conditions vei'v hard.

Mr Cameron said that if a man put his savings or profits into more land he uvas simply paying tax on this extra land. Mr .Tones said that this was right whether he put them into land or other investments. Mr Cameron remarked that Governments set up commissions which brought down recommendations and no notice was taken of them. Mr Marx agreed that men who invested in more land should not get away with it altogether. Mr O. .Robertson said that, there were some of the proposals in the Budget of which he cordially approved. It was right, he added, that big estates should be burst up because small farmers were uvhaf wore needed in the country. There were, however, other means of bringing this about than a super-tax, and he considered it. was often better for men to cut, up their properties and sell the sections than to let the Government do the work. lie approved thoroughly of the principle of of sub-division. It had been said that to cut up large holdings would drive money out of fhe country, but it was better to do this than to drive men out. They wanted population on small areas. Mr Thrush considered this taxing on income had a tendency to keep down pvodn etion. Mr Cocker: “The Prime Minister is bent on showing a. surplus, but at the expense of the farmers.” Mr Pettigrew considered it right to put extra tax on big estates, as a

means of breaking them up for it must

carry all the population if could. Where land was not, producing to its limit, 1 extra tax should be paid. The chairman said that, the small farm “stunt.” anight be a bit overdone and he -considered no farm should bo under 100 acres. Mr Robertson said lie considered that •with right farming a -man on fifty acres could do well and put away something for the future. Mr Crocker said he was certain many men were not making interest, on the capital invested and that many also were allowing no- depreciation. Air Robertson: “It comes down to this, principle—the larger the farm the better for the individual—the smaller, the better for the State.” Mr Cocker said that it. was the principle about which they were concerned and it would be interesting to know iwhat the farmers paid in duties, he believed it would be as high .as 75 per -cent, of the total. The motion quoted above was then proposed by Air Cocker and seconded by Mr Jennings and carried unanimous, ly.