LAND AND LABOR

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVI, Issue 8219, 6 September 1912, Page 4

LAND AND LABOR

[This column, weekly set aside for the discussion of land and labor problems, is edited by Mr Arthur Withy, general secretary of the .Now Zealand Land Values League, with, whom alone rests responsibility fox the opinions expressed therein.] - IN THE WITNESS BOX. SON. JAMES ALLEN, M.P., CROSSEXAMINED. "A PALTRY CONSIDERATION.''’ Our Special Grass-examiner: I see, Mr Allen, that in the debate on tho Imprest Supply Bill you declared that “The reduction of Customs duties _ was a paltry conshleration in the reduction of the cost ol living" ? Hon. James Allen: I did. , Our Cross-examiner: As, Minister fpr finance. Mi Allen, you must have made, a careful study of the ti nances oi til* Dominion? Hon. James Allen: I have. Our Gloss-examiner: Then, you will be aware, Mr’ Allen, that last year, out of a total national tax revenue of, in round figures, five millions sterling, ' Customs taxes brought in rather more than three millions sterling. Do you consider three millions out of five a paltry amount? Hon. James Allen: N-n-n-n-no; certainly n-n-not. Our Gross-examiner: Three millions a year of Customs taxes means three pounds per head for every man, woman, and child in New Zealand, or fifteen pounds a year for the average family of live. Is a tax of fifteen pounds a year “a paltry consideration” for tho average family ot five, Mr Allen? . Hon. James Allen: N-n-n-nriio; certainly n-n-n-not. . Our Gross-examiner: The non mans income tax in New Zealand is Is in the JBI, and with the super-tax added only Is 2d in the £l. Is that a “paltry” matter to tho rich man? Hon. James Allen: No; it is not! Onr Cross-examiner: Have you ever worked out, Mr Allen, what our Customs taxes amount to in the shape of A WORKING MAN’S INCOME TAX? Hon. James Allen: N-n-no; I can’t say that I have. _ „ Our Gross-examiner: Well, suppose we work it out together. What is the average wage in New Zealand? Shall wo say J 22 5a to £3 10s per week? Hon. James Alien: That is too high, if anything. . Our Gross-exammer: I am afraid it is. But, hoyertheiess, let us split ike diffarence and call the average wage .£l2O a year* As wo have seen, our Customs taxes average a “paltry" £ls per year per family. Now £ls is just ono-eighth of £l2O a year? Hon. James Allen: That is so. Our Cross-examiner: So that our Customs taxes take just one pound out of every eight of the average workers wages, or just half-o-crown out of every pound? Hon. James Alien : Yes: that is so. Our Cross-examiner: But that is not all. The wholesaler charges his profit on the Customs tax as well as on the original price of the goods, and the retailer charges his profit cm tho tax and on the wholesaler's profit on the tax as well. Is not that so? Hon. J amos Allen: Ye o-o-oa; X must admit that is so. Onr Crces-exominer: And you can hardly put those profits on tho faxes at less than SO per cent, can you, Mr Allen? Hon. James Allen; N-n-n-no; I should say not. Our Cross-examiner: So that, adding 50 per cent, to the half-crown in the pound that we have already found our Customs taxes to be equal to, we find—do wo not, Mr Allen—that our Customs taxes are equal to a working mnn’e income tax of THREE ’AND NINBPENCB IN THE POUND? Hon. James Allen:, That is what It works out t<x . „ Our Gross-examiner: More than three times as much as the rich man’s income tax "plus" super-tax of one and twopence in the pound? Hon. James Allen: Yo-o-c-e-e-ee; that is so. . Our Cross-examiner: So that if his income tax of Is 2d in the £1 Is not a “piiltry” matter to the rich man, an income tax of more than three times that amount can hardly bo a “paltry” matter to the poor man, and a reduction in that income tax can hardly bo “a paltry consideration” to him? Hon. James Allen: N-n-n-n-no; It i-c-can n-n-n-not. Onr Cross-examiner: Three and ninepence in the pound is pretty stiff for a working man’s income tax? Hon. Jas. Allen: It is. Our Cross-examiner: Especially when it is HEAVILY GRADUATED THE WRONG WAY? Hon. Jas. Allen: How do you mean? Our Cross-examiner.- Well, tho bulk of onr Customs revenue is derived from the.

simple necessaries and tho simple luxuri . of life? riou. Jas. Allen: Ye-e-e-o-es. Uur Cross-examiner: The tax on tobacco, for iusuuoco, brings in nearly as . .neb as tho Lund Tax?

don. Jas. Alien: Y-e-e-o-e-cs. »ur Oross-oxuniiner: And the consumption of these simple necessaries and simple luxuries of life is necessarily very much tho same per family, no matter n aat the income f Hon. Jas, Allen: Y-o-e-cs; I suppose

Our Cross-examiner: If, therefore, on au income of ±US) a year our Customs burden—tho taxes and the prohts on the same—is equal to au income tax of 3s hi, or say, 3s Gd in tire ±, on an increase of ±llsO a year our Customs burden will be equal to au income tax of Is Bd m trie ±; on ±o(X) a year to an income tax of lOd in the ±; on a year to oil in tho ±; on ±i±)oU a year to Id in the ±; on ATO,OOO a year to Jd in the ±; on AdO.OOO a year to R 1 in the a; on ±IO.OOO a year to half-a-f untiring in tire ±; and so on. Is not that so? Hon Jas. Aden: That is how it works out. Our Cross-examiner: And, as a reduction in an income tax of, repeotively, id, Jd, or haif-a-farthing in the ± would Certainly be '“a paltry consideration to men with incomes of ±IO,OOO, ±20,000, of ±IO,OOO a year, perhaps you were liglrl after all, Mr Allen, in declaring that 1 the reduction of Customs duties is a paltry ' consideration” ?

lion. Jas. Allen: Yes; but that is not ! what I meant. Our Cross-examiner: No; I suppose not, Mr Allen. But, then, what did you mean?

Hon. Jas. Allen: AVellKir-er-er— you know—

Our Cross-examiner: Perhaps you were thinking about the land tax, because that’s A VERY PALTRY AFFAIR. Hon. Jas. Alien:: ''Paltry,” sir! Our Cross-examiner; Yes; a good deal less than nothing. Hon. Jas. Allen: "Less than nothing t Our Cross-examiner: Well, figure it out for yourself, Mr Allen. The land tax brought tin last year about X'6l-0,000, didn't it ? , Hon. Jas. Alien: Yes! and that's rather more than nothing, isn’t it? Our Cross-examiner: But, as Finance Minister, Mr Alien, you ought to know that that is only one side of the account. . _ . Hon. Jas. Allen; "Only on© side of the account”? Our Cross-examiner: Yes; only one side of the account, Mr Alien. There was a surplus of a million sterling last year. That is to say a million pounds too much was collected in taxes; and out of that million £500,0 C0 was given in aid of the Public Works Fund, while hundreds of thousands more of borrowed money was also spent on public works. That is to say, was practically given direct to the landowners. So that, as 1 have said, the land tax is a very paltry affair—a good deal less than nothing. Hon. Jas. Allen: But that was done by the lato Government. Why blame us? . Our Cross-examiner: But you would have done the same—or worse. You haven't time to reduce the Customs taxes, but you are reducing the graduated laud tax, and you propose to abolish the mortgage tax, which means very much the same thing as abolishing the land tax altogether. - Hon. Jas. Allen: But, how can I reduce the Customs taxes? Where is the money to come from? Our Cross-examiner: Put another penny in the £ on the land tax, and even then it will bo loss than nothing? Hon. Jas. Allen: "Less than nothing r Then ?

WHY NOT A REDUCTION OF £1,000,000 A YEAE?

Our Cross-examiner: Yes; by a hundred thousand or two. In view of last year - surplus you ought to reduce the Customs taxes straight away by £500.000 a year; and an additional penny in the £ on the land tax without exemption for this second penny, would enable you to reduce them by upwards of £600,000; making a total remission of over a million a year. Or, allowing for the wholesaler’s and 'the retailer’s profits on the taxes, a total relief of a million' and a half a year—a relief of £1 10s per head, or £7 10s per family of five. Hon. Jaa. Allen: But, think of the small farmers and the small landowners generally 1 Our Cross-examiner; I am thinking of them.

Hon. Jas. Allen: “Thinking of them”! "Thinking of them” I You’ll ruin them, man; you’ll ruin theml Our Cross-examiner: “Euin them ' 1 "Enin" the small farmers and the small landowners generally I Ruin wliat small farmers and what small landowners? Hoh. Jas. Allen: Why, those who are now exempt from the land tax —those under £SOO unimproved value I Our Cross-examiner: And you are the Minister for Finance, Mr Allen? Hon. Jas. Allen : I am, sir I Our Cross-examiner: Many a fourthform schoolboy is better fitted for the fob, if you don’t know better than that! Hon. Jas. Allen: What do you mean, sir, by such language? BLUE EDINI Our Cross-examiner: You may well ask what 1 meau 1 To reduce the Customs taxes by a million a year- would mean a relief of £7 .10s per family of five, would it not? Hon. Jaa. Allen: So you have figured it out. Our Cross-examiner: And there is no getting away from the figures! Now, as against this average relief of £7 10s pei family, what would a man with an unimproved value of £IOO pay under a land tax of Id in the £. Hon. Jas. Allen: One hundred pence. Our Cross-examiner: And one hundred pence i a? Hon. Jas. Allen: Eight and fonrpence. Onr Cross-examiner: And on an unimproved value of £2OO he would pay 200 pence, or X6s 8d; on £3OO unimproved value, 300 pence, dr 255; on £IOO unimproved value, 400 pence, or 33s Id; and on £SOO unimproved value, 500 pence, or 41s Bd. Isn’t that so. Hon. Jas. Allen: Y-e-e-cs; that is so. Our Cross-examiner: Then, where does the “ruin” come in? The more you "ruin” the small farmers and the small landowners generally on such lines, the more you’ll please them. Mr Allen.. And that is 'hardly “a paltry consideration” from your point of view, I should say. Eon. Jas. Allen (sotto voce!: It is not. It is not. I must look into this matter. (Left ruminating.) AKTHHE WITHY.