Lake Wakatip Mail. QUEENSTOWN, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1874.

Lake Wakatip Mail, Issue 879, 10 November 1874, Page 2

Lake Wakatip Mail. QUEENSTOWN, TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1874.

We will now glance at the opinions expressed by some of the journals named in our last issue, when treating upon the question of taxation. We deem it unnecessary to quote anything further regarding the special and direct taxation the goldfields labor under. It is well, however, to bear in mind that the goldfields are contributing, for all the interests within them—that is to say, pastoral licenses, assessment fees, rents and sales of lands, &c., —a sum over £60,000 in excess of that reexpended upon them. We think we should be within limits if we said over £70,000. We do not dwell upon that fact now, except to show this, that the discussion of the subject comes with a good grace from the upcountry districts. The Provincial party, who have so lons' held the reins of power have persistently poon-poonea tne importance or value of the goldfields to the Province. His Honor the Superintendent, as representing Dunedin interests, and Mr Donald Reid, as the representative of theTaierior agricultural interest, are good illustrations. When Sir Jave3 Fergusson visited the Taieri Cattle Show this year, Mr Macandrew went out of his way to praise the value of the agricultural interest at the expense of the mining one—a fact that we commented upon pretty strongly at the time. Mr Reid has always been the advocate of the wealth/ road boards in and around Dunedin. If, therefore, it is felt that social and direct taxation upon the goldfields is levied for the support of other and ungrateful interests, it is not to be wondered at that goldfields journals are questioning the fairness of the present system. With these remarks—more as a continuation of our last article, than connected with the tisk before us—we leave that branch of the subject. Upon the subject of the desirability of a reform in the system of levying taxation we have already stated that the Evening Star, of all the Dunedin journals, has been the earliest and most able advocate. It has seen the necessity for two great reforms, but not for the third and chief of all. It has clearly foreseen the advantages that would arise from the re-modelling of the tariff in a free-trade direction, and so have the goldfields. We hold similar views, and probably both of us agree upon the fundamental principle that protection to native industry, fostered at the expense of the mass of the people, means only taxation for the benefit of a few. Not the few who are employed in any such special industry, but the fewer still who are at the heads of the several businesses or industries, and the employers of labor. The Tuapcha Times holds like views upon this point. It is very doubtful whether, beyond this common point, our advocacy of a reform of the tariff is based upon the motives that actuate the Star writer. We may fairly assume—and it is a creditable assumption—that the Star has, at heart, more seriously than anything else, the impetus that a freer system of trade would give to tho commercial enterprise of Dunedin. Our desire for a change in the tariff duties is not from a desire for interference with the manufacturing interests—no matter of what kind— but for a lessening of the cost of living on the goldfields. Duties will, for many years to come, require to be levied through the Custom House, but these can l>e so arranged as to give some fostering support to manufactories that are started with us under difficulties at the outset. But the

Star also very clearly sees that, under our present form of government, there is no hope for that freer system, unless we substitute direct, for indirect, taxation. We find it, therefore, frequently arguing—indeed sometimes almost losing patience that it has to enter into argument at all—in favor of an income or land tax. That is just the very thing that the goldfields declare will fairly assimilate taxation. To them, an income tax would present no bug-bear. They would pay according to gains obtained. One year, many who would not be found, under such a system, paying anything at all, through being «unlucky," would, in the next, perhaps, be paying their due meed of taxation, through having become " lucky." Such a system would be fair. It would be based upon something like the principle that led to the putting of an export duty upon gold, viz., that the most fortunate colonist, by reason of his success, would be paying an amount that he could well afford to the revenue, and which the less fortunate colonist would not have to pay. The export duty is vicious, however, in principle, as a tax upon the country's products j and the present system of taxation, direct and indirect, is very faulty in that it presses as heavily upon each individual miner, be he rich or poor. The Stars advocacy of direct taxation is, therefore, favorable to the goldfields, as well as, in our opinion, to the general interests of ihe Colony though based on, aud proceeding from, a more extensive platform. What the Star yet lacks is to add to its advocacy of the above two reforms that of a liberal land law, providing for settlement upon the deferred payment system, even if the price of land be raised. It is very warmly advocating the conservation of the unearned increment by leasing instead of selling lands. We also lately referred to the North Otago Times, whose advocacy of direct, for indirect, taxation, is not a new feature with that journal. Very recently it has again returned to the subject. It has made a step from the general advocacy of reform in our system of fixed taxation to the advanced process of the laying down of a plan for levjing an income aud land tax. We do not say that such a plan as that put forth by our contemporary is likely to pass. It is equitable enough, but, strange to teiv, that is the very thing that would prevent its adoption. Tlie large landowners will not have any of that kind of thing, and the scheme is altogether too liberal to suit vested interests, apart from that, it appears to us to be a very feasible and just one. As calculated to lead to a fuller consideration of the matter we will present here —" First, we would exempt all incomes up to £2OO a year from taxation altogether j and with respect to incomes over that amount, would levy the tax only upon the sum in excess of £2OO a-year, that proportion of every mau's income (no matter what the gross amount of his income might be) going free of impost. Then, as it is manifest that all pay taxation in the shape of the consumption of dutiable articles (and there will be Customs duties, even though there be an income tax), and as he who has most mouths to feed pays most to the State, and has a smaller net income than he who has fewest or none at all, we would suggest a scale of allowances on some such plan as the following:—Divide the amount of taxable income up to £6OO per annum, that is up to £4OO beyond the first £2OO, which should be free of taxation, into eight parts, and allow one part (in the case of an income of £6OO a-year—£so) for a wife and for each child, free of taxation ; that is, add to the untaxable part of the income (£200) £SO for a wife and £SO for each child to be maintained out of the income until the entire £6OO was untaxable. The effect would be this—to give two examples:—A man with a wife and children and an income of £4OO would pay the percentage representing the tax on £2OO, less three-eighths of that amount —in other words, would pay on £125; a man having a wife and four children, and an income of £SOO a-year, would pay on £3OO, less five-eighths of that sum—that is, would pay the tax on £ll2 10s, and so on. Deductions only to be made on sums up to £6OO, the excess of income over that amount in all cases paying the full rate per cent. We cannot see that there would be any great difficulty in working out such a scheme, and the result would be to divide the burden of taxation with absolute fairness. With a land tax we would proceed in a similar spirit by allowing every man an untaxable homestead acreage, outside the limits of towns, of 50 acres, taxing only the acreage held in excess of that amount. Then too, land held by absentees, by non-residents in the Colony, unimproved and of equal class to adjoining improved lands, should be taxed at the full valuation of the lands so adjoining. The effect of this alone would, we are persuaded, work a vast change for the better, as it would necessarily cause the lands to be parted with to resident owners or brought into cultivation."

Anything that will direct attention more forcibly to the present very oppressive andone-sided system of taxation now existent deserves notice. It is with this object that we have devoted these articles to collat-

ing views held by those of our Provincial contemporaries who hold fixed and decided opinions upon the subject. The other journals not named by us have been irregular and erratic in the expression of their sentiments, and it would therefore be useless to quote opinions subject to change at any moment In the course of this examination we have not entered into the question of th e extra additional taxation required for the maintenance of Provincial institutions, or given full consideration to the mal-administra-tion of the public estate, and revenues by that mode of government. We have however, we think, supplied matter demanding earnest and thoughtful reflection.