TAXATION

Nelson Evening Mail, 29 July 1916, Page 7

TAXATION

WHAT TILE FA!IMI:RS WANT. THE LEVY ON EXCESS PROFITS. PUTTING THE BURDEN ON THE LAND. Many remits touching taxation were included in the order-paper at the Domm on Farmers' Conference, says the Post. They dealt with this important question in many of its (phases, and provoked considerable discussion. The first read as follows: "That this conference protect against landowners

l' being singled out to pay the greater part I I of the war taxation, the present war. taxation being tantamount to a class tax, and this conference considers any taxation for war purposes should 'be an equitable one, and should bear equally on all dosses of the community." This was moved by Mr H. D. Vavasour on behalf of Marlborough. He said, that year after year they had protested against the increase of taxation, but still it went on. There was no question about the piling up of taxation on the farmer, and it amounted to nothing less than a class tax. They were agreeable to pay-in-g even more than their share, but would like the Government to have some regard to equity. There had been manyfalse statements regarding the vast profits allegedly made by the farmer. Tt was a tremendous lot of nonsense." The i farmers had lost a great deal on wheat, and the 'Government had also lost on. its ; purchases in Canada, about which the i least said the better. The ibig war profits on meat were also mythical. Mr Vavasour criticised the personnel of the Board' which dealt with New Zealand i meat at home. One of the members at least was (prominently connected with Chicago firms. There were firms making huge profits out of the released mutton and lamb. He would not object if the profits went to the Government, but they did not. Certainly the farmers were : not benefiting. The whole thing had been an absolute muddle from beginning to end. The Government was contrnuine to pile up the taxes on the farmer, and it was their duty to protest.

THE ALLEGED WAR PROFITS. Mr A. M'ackay (Marlborough) seconded the motion, and said that in many cases there had' been no so-called war profits. Instead, farmers had gone to their bankers, cap in hand, and applied for increases in their overdrafts. There should have .been a different method hi obtaining money for war purposes. No farmer would object to paying his share, but did not like 'being singled out. Only 92,000 people of the total population were going to pay the tax. What about the rest? It seemed to be a case of working the willing horse to death.

A BAD PRINCIPLE. Mr J. M'Queen (Southland) endorsed the Government's action in -regard to meat. They agreed readily at first, because they were to be protected from exploration. He held that the principle of imposing taxation on excess profits was a bad one, because it meant that farmers would not produce so much. He himself had excess profits this year, but he was not very happy about it. There would not bo so much next year. (Laughter.) He would spend more on increasing the fertility of his soil, and so increase his expenditure and reduce his profits. Mr R. Dunn (Taranaki) entered a pro- | test on behalf of the daily farmers, especially in regard to the proposed method of arriving at the tax. FARMERS DO NOT SUFFER ALONE, Mr J. Begg (Otago) said he had a certain amount of sympathy with the previous speaker, but he would not like it to go forth that they were objecting to taxation. Let them try and put it on a better footing, by all means. It was not only the farmers who suffered but many commercial firms -would be verv hard hit. Mr G. L. Marshall .(Wellington) objected to the first portion of the remit. If the farmer- was not to pay the greater part of the taxation, who was? He moved an amendment to the effect that the conference considered that any taxation for war purposes should be an equitable one, audi should bear equally on all classes of the community. This was seconded by Mr Booth (Wellington). Mir G. Anderson (Pelorus) favoured •Mr Vavasour's motion. PREPARED TO DO THEIR SHARE. Mr W. J. Birch (Marton) said they were all prepared' to pay their share, but they felt • that'they had been singled, out as a class upon which the greatest burden of taxation should rest. However, it was a- national war, and on& class was just as much interested as another. Consequently, the shares should be on an equal basis. The Government had not further taxed beer—last year's additional tax resulted' an a few paltry thousands—nor had it taxed amusements. •ONE SIMPLE TAX WANTED. Mr E. Caonlpbell (Wanganui) said: "After (listening to tftib speakers, it would seemi that the farmers ■were the only (people who were going to suffer." Mir Campbell gave instances as to how merchants were going to (be effected. The thing he objected to most was the number of different taxes they had to pay. At the present time they had a land tax, an income tax (which depended upon the honesty of the fairmer), and now the third tax which was about to be imposed. The present 'system was far too complicated, and the farmers did not understand it. They wanted one simple, easily-understood) tax. Mr A. A. Ross (Auckland) said there was no evidence that the farmers were | to be called upon to pay an excess of taxes. The farmer owned the greater ■part of the wealth., and, therefore, had to pay a greater part of the taxation. THE .APATHETIC FARMER. In reply.ing, Mr Vavasour stated that the apathy of the farmer was proverbial. Tho amendment was milk and- water, when, they wanted a strong, bold, straightout protest against the piling up of the taxation on the farmer. No part of the community had been more generous in either men or money s : nce the war started, but they wanted an equitable tax. The voting on the question was then taken. Mr Marshall's amendment was lost by 12 to 13. The original remit was then carried. EMBARGOES AND EXPORT DUTIES The next remit was moved by Mr J. Begg (Otago) as follows:—"That the Conference protest against any embargo on the export of produce, or imposition of ftcport duties." He said he knew of nothing which would tend to decrease production -more than the •imposition of an export duty. Mr D. Jones (North Canterbury) seconded the remit. Mr H; D. Vavasour (Marlborough) said it was marvellous that there could be anybody in New Zealand who could advocate an export tax. Mr Jones : Like the chairman of tho Bank of New Zealand. • Mr Vavasour: Yes, a gentleman who a year ago said that -war taxation should be equitable. The speaker was glad that the proposal had not met with favour. Mr A. A. Ross (Auckland) said that sometimes an embargo wa? necessary for tfee _prctecticr!- of the neopls of the Dominion. He instanced the embargo on I the export of butter to last Mt J. M'Queen (Southland) said that Parliamentary language would knot allow him to express his opinion; on the Government tor placing art embargo on

oats last year. The embargo and the exiport ta.x should not bo included in the same motion. "CONSULT THE FARMER." Mr T. Moss (Wellington) said it was unfair for the Government to impose an embargo on farmers' produce w.thout consulting the farmer. It was :>. gloat mistake for the Government to interfere ■with the channels of trade. They had a just right to ask what was proposed in the remit. The remit was adopted unanimously. LUXURIES AND AMUSEMENTS. Another phase was introduced by Mr G. Sheat (North Canterbury), who moved : "That the Government be asked to increase the taxation on luxuries and. amusements." If they must have taxation, said Mr Sheat," let us show Sir Joseph Ward that he can obtain it by taxing luxuries. j The remit was seconded by Mr Begg and carried unanimously. TAXING- INCOMES. Mr D. Jones, also on behalf of North Canterbury, moved: —"That th's conference favours the system of taxing incomes as being the fairest way of reaching war profits from land' and all other sources." The proposal, he said, was better than one providing for a further tax on land wliich, if once imposed., would be permanent. He strongly supported the income tax as applied to farmers, but was just as solidly against an increased land tax. It was a mrattcr for regret that the Government, was about to issue a war loan, which would be free from income tax. He protested against the action of the 'Government in already" issuing a loan free from income, tax. No form of income should be exempted. The remit was seconded by Mr Vavasour, and was adopted. THE EXEMPTION QUESTION. Mr A. MacKay (Marlborough) moved : —"That the attention of the Governmentbe drawn to the clause in the Land and Income Tax Act relating to allowance for number of children, and that this conference recommends that the exemption with regard to numbers be deleted ' so that there will be no limit as to the I number of children tinder 16 years of ! a.ge." He stated that he knew of one ! family where eleven children come under ; the clause of the Act. There were 15 I children in the family- altogether. The | statute provided exemption up to five children. Mr W. A. Cox (Southland) seconded the remit, which was adopted unanimously.