PUBLIC OPINION

Northland Age, Volume 28, Issue 50, 13 June 1928, Page 6

PUBLIC OPINION

RE-DISTRIBU fION OF NATIONAL INCOME (To the Editor) Sir, —State authority imDosed so as to press unduly on any section is immoral. Such a position clearly exists in New Zealand today, the exporting section of the primary producers being the victims. The services of farmers to the community are basic. They are like gold in their value, subject to world fluctuations only and not liable to rise and fall with other local values. In New Zealand they are paid by a depreciated currency, the inflated price at which all other services are sold. For instance it takes about 3tbs of butter to buy transport which lib of butter would buy in 1914. Protection of all non-farm-ing classes has been carried to a vicious extreme. The State has not the right to legislate all-round benefits for others at the expense of primary production. There has been no considerable increase of primary production, either in quantity or value, since 1919. Such increase as there has been is mostly absorbed by increased population. Yet such are the barriers to free interchange of labour goods and capital that evensjeh vast improvements in herds and pastures as have more than offset abandonment of milli ms of acres, are not enabling the reduced number of farmers to till any but the best and best situated land. That is bad for farmers and eventually bad for New Zealand. Meanwhile, from the common pool of production, all other classes are deriving increased financial benefit, due to infliiion of post-war services.

Between 1918 and 1921, the trading investment classes increased their net assessable in-

co lies 72 per cent, (£19,335,815 to £33,181,460). Between 1923 and 1927, “Commerce or Business,” not comparable with previous fig uiei, improved its position 42 per cent, (£11,158,807 to £15,846,612) ai d “Investors” increased assessable incomes by 41 per cent (£7,827,437 to £11,062,688). From 1918 to 1921 net assessable incomes of the investment class ros: from £3,775,616 to £8,304,120, a rise of 115 per cent in three years. Salaries, wages, Government and local services, etc., all increased in both periods. There is much food for thought in the tables. Someone must suffer and the income tax statistics indicate the sufferers. Landowners’ net assessable incomes were £11,886,958 in 1918 and £9,352,777 in 1921. If the figures include any besides fir tiers’ incomes, it is safe to assert that the drop in farming incomes was more than the £2,500,OX) difference. In 1923, when the income tax was removed, farmers’ assessable incomes totalled £5,263,367, the net amount taxable being less than £1,000,000.

In view of the forgoing, felt more than understood by many farmers, is it any wonder that despitefheir wellknownconservatism they are beginning to seek a remedy in politics, where alone it can be found?' Improved methods of firming should help farmers. They have helped the nation, but iiardly suffice to enable farmers to Subsist. Co-relation of reward of farming services to other services has to be arrived at somehow. lam, etc., A E Robinson