TAXATION

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8482, 17 July 1913, Page 10

TAXATION

LAND AND INCOME FARMERS COMPLAIN OF UNJUST TREATMENT. Sojno comparisons between tbo incomo tax arid tbo land tax.were made at the annual conference of the Farmers’ Union on Tuesday. Mr Ross brought up the matter by moving :—“That this conference is of opinion that the land tax, as compared with the income tax, is acting very unfairly on the farming community, and that the system requires altering, so that there would bo an equal burden on all capital, whether invested in 'hind or any other class of investment.” Ho said that they wouid ail agree that a great burden was placed on tho man who wished to invest his capital in the development of the land. Tho present position was that if a man had £6OOO to invest in a business in the city ho was taxed 5 per cent., but if ho put it in a farm he got much more heavily taxed. In one case that camo under his notice a farm consisting of 420 acres had a capital value of £11,142, the improvements £2742, and the unimproved value £B4OO. Under the land tax the owner had to pay £3O 7s 6d, and under tho income tax he would pay £6 8s 6d. The capital value of a 200-acro farm was £4290, improvements £IO9O, unimproved value £32ul), and tho land tax £l3 0s Bd, hut under the income tax it was nil. Another farm of Sll acres had a capital value of £14,129, tho improvements were £4803, and tho unimproved value £9326. Under tho land tax tho owner had to pay £46 3s, while under the income tax it would bo £lO ss. This showed how heavy the tax was, and how unjust it was. Mr Lusk said that the figures that had boon mentioned spoke for themselves, and there was only one point to which ho wished to draw attention. This was a young country, and a man taking up new. land had do expend a great deal on it, and then had to meet these heavy taxes. The farmers should not be penalised more than people in the town.

Mr Vavasour said that the farmer was the milch cow of the country, and he was moat severely taxed. He contrasted investments in town and cotintry, and pointed out that the farmer was taxed five times as much as anyone else. The whole of the community made their incomes out of the farmer, and it was time they put their foot down and stopped this “ robbing” oi the farmer.

Mr Maxwell said that in Taranaki the matter was gone into very fully some years ago, and in every case there was a clear injustice to those who had invested in the farming industry compared with those who had put their money in other industries. The secretary produced the figures. The chairman (Mr J. G. Wilson): The figures are the same. Mr Maxwell said that 5 per cent, on tho capital value should he con sidored as the approximate income, and there should be the same exemption under the income tax. After that they should ho taxed the same as income tax. There was no doubt the farming community was unjustly treated. Mr McQueen said that what strnck him as affecting the position was that they wanted to settle tho lands as much as possible, and instead of handicapping the industry by taxation they should encourage it, and give them more favourable terms. They pretended all the legislation was to settle tho land, but as soon as the people got there they plundered them. They (wanted to put the farming community on the same footing as other industries.

Mr Bell said that this was only the ‘thin edge of the wedge of the single taxer. They were carrying a load others were smiling at. It was not fair that those who produced all should ho taxed for all. They had also to look at death duties. He knew of one case where on £llOO tho sum of £B7 was paid in dnty, while in another case £SOO was left to a distant relation, and the duty and solicitors’ fees, camo to £287.

Mr Richards pointed out the unfairness of tho mortgage tax. The chairman said that there was a-' very great difference in the possibility) of the business man making money,, and the farmer making money. Say' a man invested £SOOO in a business, bo turned this over three or four times in a year at 5 per cent., and thus, made 20 per cent. Tho dairy farmer received his money monthly, but tho agriculturist and tho wool-grower only! ,got a turnover once a year. Therefore, there was a great difference be- 1 tween the farmer and the business I man. Ho would never believe in the land tax, as it was against production, and tbo State should not tax the farmer unduly. The motion was carried.