WAR TAXATION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LII, Issue 16020, 11 September 1915, Page 5

WAR TAXATION.

PETROL AND KEROSENE. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE VIEWS. The Government's -war tax proposals were briefly discussed at yesterday's meeting of the council of the Auckland Chamber of Commerce. The vice-president, Mr. E. Anderson, who occupied the chair, 'said that the proposed methods of taxation were vexatious and generally disappointing. " The farmers' income tax," he, continued, " is likely to cause endless friction, and, unless the Government is going to employ an army of inspectors and accountants, it may be taken for granted that only the big men will have to pay, and the smaller farmer, who in many cases is probably better able to pay than the man in town with an income of £300 a year, will altogether escape this form of tax, owing to the difficulty of assessment of a farmer's income. I am not referring to the struggling farmer; but one has only to compare the price of stock and farm products 12 months ago and today, to realise that the average fanner is well able to afford an extra tax. An export duty on wool, beef, mutton, etc., would be an easy tax to collect, and m view of present ruling prices, such a tax would be felt only by those- who have immensely benefited by the war. " Probably the greatest surprise in the War Budget was the absence of a fairly heavy tax on luxuries and amusements. Presumably the Government is under the impression that in placing an extra heavy duty on oenzine, it is taxing one of the luxuries; but the proposed duty on this commodity and on kerosene will seriously hamper industry, and the general impression among commercial people 'is that the proposed tax should be altogether eliminated. Judging by the recent remarks made by some members of the Cabinet, the proposed taxes on luxuries are aimed at the suppliers or purveyors of such luxuries. This may be all right as far as it goes, but the general feeling of the community is that these taxes should not altogether be borne by the manufacturer, or the purveyor, of any particular luxury, but by the individual indulging in it." Mr. Anderson moveo!:—"That this chamber, while fully accepting the necessity for increased taxation, is of opinion that the proposed duties on petrol and kerosene, being a tax on the industries of the people, are undesirable." Mr. L. J. Bagnall seconded the motion. Mr. E. Brown favoured a reduction of the income tax exemption. Several members expressed the opinion that it* was a little late to have alterations carried into effect. The motion was carried.