DIRECT TAXATION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIII, Issue 13689, 4 March 1905, Page 5

DIRECT TAXATION.

. It is very '.probable, as Mr Fowlds gays, that the report of the Land Commission may draw attention to the comparatively small amount that is contributed to the public revenue by way of direct taxation. A good deal of light was thrown upon this important subject last session by two returns which frero prepared on the motions of r ®ll and Mr Laurenson, the one showing fjio number of contributors to the lan tax, and the other the number of contributors to the income-tax. There are altogether 115;713 landholders in the colony; but of these only 15,86 , or about 12 per cent, pay land tax. Of these, again, about one half pay less than £3 each, and 11,541 pay less than £lO each. There are only 406 who pay over £IOO, only 152 who pay over i£2so, and only 63 who pay over £o • The total amount received in land-tax last year was £337,991, and this amount divided among the 10,864 contributors gives an average payment of £2l. There are 13,731 contribute! s paying less than this average. The return obtained by Mr Laurenson shows that at the end of last financial year there were only 6883 persons and companies paying income tax, and that ®f these 5618 were paying on incomes of less than £IOOO a year. .This means that in the whole of the colony there were only 1275 persons and companies earning more than this amount. The number seems to us incredible. We should have thought that there were quite twice as many people, apart from those making their livings from land, in the enjoyment of' incomes running into four figures. However, this is a question for the Commissioner of Taxes, and we presume that that gentleman takes the necessary steps to protect the revenue. It is the analysis of Mr Ell’s return that gives the most interesting results. We have been told, times without number, that the land-tax is embarrassing and discouraging the agricultural community, and that any increase of the graduation or reduction of the exemption would spell ruin to a large 'number of producers. The substitution of the land-tax for the property-tax gave relief to thousands of small farmers, and wo find now that there is scarcely one of this class paying as much as he was paying under the old regime. Surely, in these circum- . stances, the authorities should insist upon the valuation of both leasehold and freehold land being fairly adjusted. In the past there has been a good deal of carelessness, as we have recently seen in the Flaxbourne compensation case, and the Government would do well to re-enact the provision by which k a property could be taken over by the State at a reasonable advance upon the ' owner’s valuation. It is obvious that, under the present system,’ there is an enormoris leakage somewhere. If the members of the Land Commission can discover this leakage and suggest an effectual way of stopping it, they will more than justify their appointment.