LAND AND INCOME TAX.

Oamaru Mail, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 10591, 21 October 1910, Page 4

LAND AND INCOME TAX.

CPer Phess Association.^ (Wellington, October 20. ' In moving the readingot-the. Land and Income Tax Bill to-night the Premier explained the provisions in. the BiU, which consisted ot .a: .graduated income tax to be levied, rising to Is 2d; in the pound on incomes not exceeding £2OO, and an inciease in the amount: levied on b.mks. . , Mr Allen said he could not understand why the Prennei proposed such an increase m taxation when it was not; reauired. The increase in the graduate el tax would pioduce £BO,OOO, and.' £14,000 additional would be derived from the banks. The ?™ mi " «"B£v to provide for a remission ot £IOU,OUU taxation in another direction to balance this He complained that the graduation was too high in cases ot incomes below £IOOO. ,-*!+■ „ Mr Russell also considered, that men with-incomes below £IOOO were paying more in proportion than those havmg incomes over that amount. He would; prefer to see taxation placed on in-comes-up to £IO,OOO, which were those best able to bear it. ... Mr "Fraser asked the P.remier it he woukLsupply figures showing; the.number of people who would pay on incomes between £/00 and.£iUUU. Mr Taylor (Chnstchurch) agreed with. the views expressed by Mr Russell.as.a protest against increased taxation, lie moved an amendment to the effect that in view of the buoyant condition ot the Dominion finances and the large surplus of revenue accruing this _year,, the House, while appproving of the principle ot a graduated income tax, fs of opinion that no new taxation should be imposed if not required tor the purposes of the Government; unless, the increased taxation is accompaniedby a simultaneous reduction- ot the taxatioirnowk paid by the people. No justification bad been given tor the increased taxation. ~ Mr M'Laren seconded the amendment. ~ , , , Sir Joseph "Ward said he had. no intention to reduce taxation. Air laylor ignored the remission ot the Customs taxation last year. • The critics of the Bill did not understand the position. How was Mr Allen's proposal to remit taxation to equal the amount to be raised by the Bill to be carried out. Regarding the scale of taxation on the income tax it had to be remembered that there was an exemption ot - £3OO, and that the amounts specified in the Bill had to be increased by that amount, so that the exemptions have been made already in favor or men with smaller incomes. . _ Mr Laurenson, in opposing the amendment, said he could understand it if coming from any other member but Mr Taylor. Money derived from .increased taxation might be-required at any time. For instance, there was a proposal to reduce the hours of asylum Attendants, which it was said would increase the expenditure by on. e - Jin 'V, v He favored this being done. - lhe Bill went in the direction of taxing the luxuries and not the necessities ol the people. . , Mr Herrics said the richer a man was the less he paid under the scale proposed by the Bill. . Mr EH blamed Mr Hemes for objecting to a Bill he had previously asked for. He was greatly surprised by Mr Tavlor moving such an amendment, and" being seconded by a member who claimed to represent Labor. The money was required-for various State purposes, and where ,was it to come from if not from the. revenue. If a self-reliant policy was to be pursued increased taxation was necessary..' The purpose of the Bill would not prove oppressive, but would supply surplus revenue, a'nd thereby lessen the need for borrowing. The debate was continued by bir \\ J. Steward and Mr M'Laren