TAXATION OF CROWN TENANTS

Oamaru Mail, Volume XLIX, Issue 13907, 7 November 1919, Page 1

TAXATION OF CROWN TENANTS

To the Editor. Sir.—This is a subject that has at liferent times been discussed and written about, and is a subject that should receive the earnest attention of our -loh'ticians. Now that New Zealand is. sledged to repay tens of, millions of ion-owed money, taxation is perhaps i question of interest to all. A tew vceks ago our Prime Minister, when lsked if"certain moneys could not be :aken from the Consolidated Fund to nakc up some subsidiary payment, "Hon. members must remember hat the Consolidated Fund must iccessarily have its limits, and I am lot at all sure that 'we will not soon tavq. 'to lew fresh taxation." It will )e interesting in the immediate future o see just where this extra burden or, axatio'n is to be placed. Is it not •easonablo to say that tilb every acre if New Zealand is made to bear its ust share of laud taxation, uo other axation should be imposed on the people. New Zealand is purely "an agricultural and pastoral country, and relies >n the agriculturalists and pastorahsts or the bulk of its exports. Thereore as every acre of New Zealand help's to swell the volume of NewZealand exports, should not every acre it the same time pay its fair proportion of taxation? But does every acre jay taxation? I am not in error m. saving that it does not. And till every ici ; e of New Zealand soil is -made to mv its duo share of land tax I will naintaiii that there is something radically wrong with our politicians. I mve spoken to many of our Crown cnants, who admit that they pay no and tax. T have spoken to some of I lie large runholders who also acknowledge that they pay nothing by way oi and tax. And I have/spoken to Government officials who have told me hat th» Crown tenant's taxation starts vhon he holds land valued at £2000; :hat if a Crown, tenant has land taken ip a few rears ago. say 100 acres. Government' rental 10s per acre, and ■hat land is to-dav with improvements valued at 20s per acre rental, he is 'xompt from land tax. the Government literest in the laud £IOOO. and £SOO 'urther exemption,' which should make ii* laud tax pavable on £SOO. But is such the ease? Men with land— Drown tenants, runholders included, veil over the £2OOO limit— will tell •on that thev pay no land tax. But rill usually add: "Of course. I pay ncome tax." But land tax is not income tax. It is satisfactory to be in he position to pay income tax ecr,ainly, but many men have not a taxbie 'ineome-vthat are paying land tax, nd more have a taxable income, but niss the land tax, though holding >road acres. Is this a desirable state if affairs in a country laboring under hicdi burden of debt? Would it not >o but reasonable to demand from the n-ui who is reaping his profits from sew Zeal-ami soil to pay iu proportion o his holding his mite of land tax.i"he freehlcler. . Crown tenant, runloklcr. whether holding 10 acres or, ,n the other hand. 100,000 acres, ihould not escape the laud tax. It natters little whether a man be a trccmlder or a Government leaseholder. >ach side by side, is taking his living iff the. land. Neither can take Ins land vitlv him when lie dies, and each ihould pav his proportionate share ol and tax while alive and in possession )F the land. Were every acre of New Zonland made to pay laud tax it is safe to sav that the revenue of the ■oinrtrv would benefit considerably. In connection with the land tax. there is at present another iwint to be xra.sidereil. The Government are now , buying largo properties throughout j Ke'w Zealand— properties that are at present paying land tax. These properties will be cut up and become Crown lands, and so the present land t-ix will be lost to the Government Was this what Mr Masscy had in mind when he said fresh taxation would probably have to be levied T would not be one that would be in favor ol calling on the soldier settlers to mimediately pay land tax, but would he; hi favor of granting them five yearsexemption, but not at all m iavor at the nresent critical time in the history of New Zealand of granting civilian Crown tenants more than reasonable no-fee that it was intended to call on them to pav theii-'just share of a tax that thev should never Imve escaped waving. We are now on the verge of another General Election. Perhaps some of our political aspirants may see fit to <dve us the views as held by them on this important subject—that will be clear and concise, without Teferrin"- to intricacies—such as part of section 4 of sub-clause S hx clause 7 of the amendment embodied in m»h and such an Act-says .soandso._Tam, etc_ ELANOE/