EVENING SITTING.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLI, Issue 224, 21 September 1907, Page 2

EVENING SITTING.

The House resumed at 7.30 p.m. Clause 3, which provides that sections 44 and 45 of the principal Act, section 5 of the Land and Income Assessment Act Amendment Act, 1903 and the Schedule to the last-men-tioned Act be repealed, was agreed to without amendment.

Clause 4, which provides that every person who owns land the unimproved value of which is £5000 or more shall pay graduated land tax, commencing with the year ending 30th March, 19U8, was agi-eed to without amendment.

At Clause 6, sub-section 3, "For every additional thousand pounds of the said value over the amount of £40,000 the percentage shall be in-

creased from one-fifth of a shilling,

and the percentage so increased shall be charged on the total unimproved value of the land in respecfc of which the said value is assessed," Mr WILFORD moved ■an amendment to omit the clause, with a view t<> inserting the following:—'Tor a higher value there shall be a progressive increase of percentage, the rate for every value being one-fifth of a shilling more than that for a value of one thousand pounds less." He urged that under the clause proposed in the Bill no provision was made as to what tax should be imposed on amounts betwesn the thousands over £40,000. The .amendment was negatived by 56 to 6. Mr LAUIIENSON said that ho desired to move that progress be reported, for certain reasons. As a private Member it was impossible for him to move that the exemption be reduced, , but* by reporting progress it would enable the Government to bring down by Governor's message proposals to reduce the exemption from £40,000 to £25,000. He had good reasons for the course he proposed to adopt. There were 370 estates betwesn £20,000 and £40,000, and if the exemption were ' reduced the increased revenue thereby derived would be £5272; whilst itwould also increase the revenue from estates over £40,000. His estimation of the extra revenue was that it would probably be from £10,000 fo £12,000, but he particularly desired to emphasise that a man owning £25,000 worth of land held an ample quantity, and , the Government should do all possible i to.discourage1 large holdings. The PRIME MINISTER said that he gave Mr Laurenson every credit for his desire to move the reduction of progressive taxation from / £40,000 to £25,000, but thought Mr Laurenson had said that the increased revenue would be some £5000 more, he (the Prime Minister) assured Members that the increase would not exceed £4000. He reiterated his remarks made on the second reading of the Bill, that it was not desirable to reduce the

amount below £40,000. He pointed out that there were properties of less than 400 acres with an unimproved value of £25,000, and others with 500 ~ acres of an unimproved value of £30,----i 000; and for reasons which he. had

given before he was not prepared to

I accept a proposal to reduce the item. I Ho reminded Members that the in- | creased taxation from graduated land I tax would be £17,000 in excess of the j highest amount received during 1904, 1905, and 1906, Incidentally he instanced the case of a farm of 943 j acres, _the unimproved value of which | was £71,000. If Mr Laurenson's pro- | posal were carried it would place great I hardship on the many land-owners of properties valued at £25,000, and would flood the market. He added that it would injure the Colony if the proposal were carried. Mr RUTHERFORD opposed the motion to report progress. He said that large estates were materially decreasing under existing taxation, and he urged that there was ho necessity to reduce the amount of exemption below £40,000. Mr FISHER agreed with Mr Laurenson. and proposed to vote for the amendment, because he knew that it would be defeated; but if he believed

that the carrying of the amendment

would lead to confiscation he would not support it. He would like to see a Bill designed to prevent large estates being brought into existence, but he did not want to come down on the private individual and say that by the imposition of this tax they were practically going to confiscate his excess land.

Mr WILFORD said that the revenue derived from Customs last year was £2.941,000, and from land tax £447,000 The total value of the unimproved freehold laml of the Colony was £100,232,247, and that, he urged, was sufficient justification for Mr Laurenson's amendment. He was sorry that the hon. Member did not propose to make the exemption £20,----000 instead of £25,000. Mr ELL contended that there were many estates held by one man which would provide livings for six or seven families, and others of enormous values within easy distance of toAvns which would be of great value for market gardening purposes. He would support the amendment. He

added that the time would come when they would have to reduce the exemption far lower than £25,000. ; lie PRIME MINISTER said that there were 128,U'ju landowners in the Colony, and 20.000 odd paid land tax. The value of the taxable land was £.77, 000,000 last year, and the mortgages amounted to £49,000,000. If comparisons were to be introduced between the Customs revenue and land tax, they would have to go a little further and see how much the people owning land paid in Customs revenue. Mr LAURENSON, in replying to the Prime Minister, said that if the exemption was reduced to £25,UUU, the increased revenue, he found, would be £16,927, and not £52/2, as he had stated previously. The motion to report progress was negatived by 49 to 12, the divisionlist being as follows : — Ayes (12): Messrs Arnold, Barber, Ell, Fisher, Hanan, Hogg.. Izard, Laurenson, Poland, Poole, Stallworthy, Wilford. Noes (49): Messrs Aitken, E. I*. Allen, Jas. Allen, Bennet, Colvm, Dillon, Duncan, Flatman, Fowlds, A. L D Fraser, W. Fraser, Graham, Gray, Greenslade, Hall, Hernes, Hofnsby, Houston, Jennings, 'Kidcl, Lang, Lawry, Lewis, Lethbridge McGowan, McNab, Macpherson, Major, Malcolm, Mander, Massey, Millar, Mills, Ngata, Okey, Parata, Kojd, Remington, Ross, Rutherford, beddon, Stevens, Steward, Svmes Tanner, Thomson. Ward, Witty, Wood. Mr ELL said that there were two estates in Wellington of a value ot £202 288, and eleven estates valued at £578,140. There were two sections, one 170 ft by 137 ft valued ao £18,725, and one 95ft by 93ft valued at £16,625. These, he said, represented unearned increment, and those were cases for progressixe land tax; but because they were business sites they were exempt. In Christchurch an 'acre of land was valued at h<oZ,----985, and another section of 1* acres valued at £110,435. In the latter case in the early days a quarter of an acre was sold for £24. Four years ago this was valued at £47,500. These were business sites which had been created by the community, and should contribute more towards the taxation of the country. The PRIME MINISTER said that the Bill was for the purpose of cutting up estates, and could not apply to business sections, as they could not be cut up for the purpose-of the Bill, which was intended for cutting ..up hud for settlement purposes. Mr HERRIES said: ..Suppose he held ten acres in the City of Wellington ; he would draw rents from the whole portions of the estate, and-yet would not pay graduated tax under tho Bill. He urged that these large city estates should be cut up for purposes of workers' homes, etc. The Bill would encourage men to invest money in city property and forsake the country. He argued that if a man held city property he should be exempted in so far as his own premises were concerned, and not in regard to his tenants. Mr GRAY pointed out that where a land-owner paid £2 10s per year in taxes, a man owning land in towns would probably pay £250 in taxes. Mr MASSEY said that the argument of the city representatives was to the effect that they should tax land to prevent monopoly in the country, but should allow monopoly in the towns to go untaxed. He urged that there should be no differentiation between land" in the cities and land in the country. This was an extreme tax, which was intended to apply to the country but not to the towns; and he was altogether opposed to differentiation. He contended that in proportion to the value derived the local taxes in the country were in excess of the local taxes in the towns.

At Claiise 7, subsection 1, " Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, each of the said percentacres determined as aforesaid shall be increased by-25 per cent, thereof in the case of all land other than business premises as herein denned," Mr ELL moved to strike out all the words after "land."

The PRIME MINISTER pointed out that the effect of the amendment would be increased taxation.

The Chairman ruled the amendment out of order.

After midnight a new sub-clause, " This section shall commence to take effect Avith respect to graduated land tax payable for the year ending the 31st March, 1910,'' was agreed to. Clause 8 was agreed to without amendment.

The House adjourned at 1.35 a.m