FARMERS' TROUBLES.

Hawera & Normanby Star, Volume XLII, Issue XLII, 28 March 1922, Page 3

FARMERS' TROUBLES.

HANDING BACK PROPERTIES

STAMP DUTY REMISSION

UNION REJECTS PROPOSAL

AUCKLAND DELEGATES PROTEST

The financial troubles of some farmers who bought land at boom prices were discussed at the Dominion executive of the Farmers' Union in Wellington. The question was raised by a suggestion that when the original owners had to resume possession of properties they should not be required to pay stamp duty. The executive thought that relief of this kind was not justified. j The Southern Hawke's Bay branch had asked the executive to consider ! the hardship that arose when the on- j ginal owners had to tako back their J farms owing to the new owners being i unabie to carry on. "In many cases," said the branch, "tho vendors have not received for some time the interest j duo to them, and even in some instances have helped the holders financially, but before the farm can be passed over to the original o,yner < he j has to find the stamp duty, etc., just as if he were making a purchase in tho ordinary way.'' Mr H. Morrison (Masterton) said that in most of these cases the original owners had sold out at a very high price, and the buyers could not cany on owing to the slump. He cl;d not think any action was required. Mr J. H. Jull (Hastings) thought n most unjust that stamp duty hhouiti have to be paid in cases of the kind, and this view was supported warmly by Mr F. Colbeck (Auckland), who said that in some instances the Uovernment had already collected Kiamp duty half-a-dozen times on the same yioyurty aurm;. the nmt tev,' yeara. Mr Morrison: The original owners got a good deal of cash down, and they { are doing pretty well. It is the poor j fellow who is going out that sulleib. Mr Colbeck: I sold three properties ' without taking any" cash at all. Where do I stand now with B£d being paid ■ for butterfat? j The chairman (Mr W. J. v Poisonj: ,' We are getting Is in1 our district. j | Mr Colbeck: We are getting B|d, j ana m one case they are only getting ' 6d. The men are walking oh tneir farms, it is e&sential that something should be done. If one man goes j down ht; will drag many others wicn I him. Members of the executive declared that m a good many cases the original owners received fairly large deposits and were now resuming pos&essioii of the properties under quite advantage- I ous conditions. The Government in any case ought not to encourage foreclosures. Mr Colbeck: If you turn this down you are going to kill the Farmers' Union in Auckland. They will say that you are taking no interest m their troubles. This is a most important ) matter, and if these, difficulties are not aealt with promptly I do not know what is going to happen. If one man Tails he will take many others with him. Mr W. X Mathieson (Eketamma): The remission of stamp duty will not stop that. Mr Jull said he could quote i case cf hardship that he knew —a man who had been worth £200,000 two years ago, and was now working at a trade for wages. The man who bought a farm during the war years, sold it fit a good price, bought another farm, and sold that owe also. He was in a good position until the siump came. Then both the farms were thrown tack on his hands. The money that had been made out of the transactions had been spent. He had either to take back boith the farms or else see them sold and 'become liable for any deficiency created by the sales. If he took the f arms beck he must ptiy stamp duty. Many other people were in the same position. Mr Colbeck: There are thousands of them. Mr E. I);:>:field (Horptiu) said the Farmers' Union was doing nothing for the dairy farmers at present. A rival organisation was professing to do a great deal for them. He did not say that the union could do anything. He did not see what could be done, but he thought a conference might be arranged for the diecussioH of the difficulties.

Members: That is another question. I Mr G. L. Marshall (Marton): It is suggested that a law should*, be passed to make it compulsory for interest to be added to the principal for a year. Mr Chadwick said the facij. was that t when times were good most of the fai- ' mers were busy selling out and gambling in land. Now the slump had come and times were changed. It was very unfortunate, but he did not see that the union could approach, the Government in the matter. He had in his mind the case .of a man who sold his farm at a high price on a £3000 deposit, and then sold his stock at hign prices. Now the man had the farm back on his hands. He held the £3000, and was restocking at slump prices. He was making a big profit. The chairman said he knew bt' ft similar case on a larger sonic He did not think anything could be done except by mututil consent of the parties. The Government had appointed a commissioner, who might be able to At> something. The matter, after all, was one of business. It would be a mistake in many cases to attempt to bolster up men who had bought land in the boom years at very high prices on very small deposits. These mcii could not get rid of their load of debt otherwise than by getting out. It was better for them to make a fresh start. Mr Mathieson moved that while the executive knew that hardship was arising in some cases, it realised that th« chief hardship generally fell upon the man who went out, ana it did not see any sufficient reason for asking for an alteration of the law regarding stamp duty. He thought that facts had to be faced. "We are sick for want of discipline," he remarked. The motion was carried, Mr Colbeck and Mr Duxfield dissenting. "It is the most cruel thing you have don© for many a day," said Mr Colbeck. The executive decided to ask the Commissioner of Taxes for a statement as to his power to remit in cases of hardship.