DE-RATING FARM LANDS.

Huntly Press and District Gazette, Volume XV, 10 April 1931, Page 2

DE-RATING FARM LANDS.

Sir, —With reference to the Motor Union’s official statement on the subject of de-rating farm lands, will you kindly allow me to reply as follows: No scheme of improving main highways by taxation of all motorists can be fair, because the rural motorist who makes less use of such roads pays without receiving proportional bene-

fit. Concrete and bituminous roads give motorists a profit on taxation, poor roads are much more expensive to motorists in benzine, tyres and maintenance, so that the users of such roads not only pay more taxation, but w'ould even receive less in return were the proceeds of taxation spread over all roads in ratio of traffic. As the main benefit is confined to roads between centres and funds are principally spent near main centres, the motorists in those centres receive excessive advantages. Moreover fhe county ratepayers contribute through rates as well as benzine taxation to the Main Highways, which are not one-quarter of the formed roads in mileage, besides entirely supporting the remaining three quarters of roads. The Motor Unions object to Government taxation of motor-vehicles etc., except for road improvement purposes. Would it not be as reasonable to object to taxation of dairying and agricultural machinery, or even of beer, unless the proceeds were specifically devoted to benefit of the taxed? Also, the new traffic has received a free gift of past expenditure of £loß,ooo>ooo which the Transport Department states to have been invested in roads. The Motor Unions may have voluntarily offered to pay motor taxation for certain purposes, as they state, but is hardly to the point. They had no right to do so. This taxation has involved many who are suffering unduly through it. Good roads lead to ordinary County roads and pour outside traffic upon them which they are not conditioned to withstand, destroying them rapidly, whilst the drain on county funds for Main Highways purposes leaves nothing available in some ridings for ordinary riding roads. In mentioning the amount diverted from the Main Highways last year by Government it should be clearly understood that the money in question consisted of Government grants to the roads and constituted further unfair advantage to road users as compared with users of the railways. It should also be borne in mind that benzine taxation is not all passed on to the motorists—twopence and the nine fortieths super tax being carried by the oil companies, that borough road rates have not increased since the Main Highways Act was passed, though county road rates have increased 80 per cent, (a queer commentary on the claim that, “motor taxation is de-rating”), that the towns would receive about double as much money under the automatic allocation of the benzine tax and, as they are not suffering any hardship at present borough and city ratepayers would benefit greatly. Why the cities should obtain a “much larger proportion” of the tax is a conundrum. The Motor Union’s suggestion that the county ratepayer motorist would pay more under an increased benzine tax than he does at present in benzine and motor taxation combined is quite untenable, because the amount he already pays in rates w'ould be wiped out and the corresponding tax which derates those lands w'ould be distributed over 220,000 persons using motor vehicles, whereas there are only about one-quarter as many farmers not all of whom use motor vehicles. Had the £640,000 usually paid by Government to the Main Highways etc., not been diverted to the Consolidated Fund, it w’ould not necessarily have helped farmers, as stated by the Motor Union. A great deal of expenditure on main highways is actually detrimental to farmers, leading more outside traffic to county roads. The “killing the golden goose” argument has nothing in it since if benzine consumption is reduced so will be the wear and tear on the roads.—Yours etc., A. E. ROBINSON Provincial Secretary N.Z. Farmers’ Union, Auckland Province.