MONDAY, AUGUST 19. 1929. LAND TAXATION PROPOSALS.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20799, 19 August 1929, Page 8

MONDAY, AUGUST 19. 1929. LAND TAXATION PROPOSALS.

A good many harsh things have been ■written by correspondents concerning the views expressed in the Daily Times with reference to the Government’s proposals for the additional taxation of land. One correspondent whoso letter was published by us on Saturday confessed to sonic doubt whether the hospitality of our columns would be extended to his contribution. It was a contribution couched in rather violent terms, but the Daily Times has never made, nor will it make, a practice of suppressing a legitimate criticism of its opinions on questions of public interest. It has been charged with having displayed an “ astonisliing flippancy and superficiality ” in the judgment it has offered on this particular subject. Flippancy certainly cannot be justly alleged against ns. We have seriously questioned whether the Government’s proposals arc not more drastic and more far-reaching than is justifiable. We have earnestly put it to the Minister of Finance that the scheme of taxation as applied to land merits closer investigation than seems so far to have been given to it in order that it may not be productive of the hardship which may be caused if his proposals are adopted in the form in which they were outlined in the Budget. Whether this is evidence of “superficiality” in the views we have expressed is a point upon which our correspondent of Saturday last will, it may be imagined, not be convinced. He assures ns, among other things, that the “ big men ” among the landed proprietors will bear the impost with the least disturbance because they will simply make public charities suffer to the extent by which their taxation payments will be increased. And he complains that the wealthy city men escape entirely under the new taxation since ■ it is limited fanning properties—so limited for the obvious reason, from the Government’s point of view, that the supertax is designed to bring about the bursting-up of estates that arc too large to be worked to the best advantage under a single proprietorship. In this relation, our correspondent falls into an error which be would have avoided if the ivarmth of his feelings had not had the effect of blinding him to actual facts. He attributes inconsistency to the Daily Times in the respect that the Budget proposes “the re-imposition of a double taxation of land incomes” which we have condemned in the past. A double taxation of f icrs is, however, not proposed. .hat is proposed is that a farmer shall pay land tax or income tax, whichever is the higher—not land tax and income tax. But the wealthy city men, in whose interests the Budget is supposed to be framed, ‘are actually paying double tax at the present time. Not only do they pay income tax but they also pay land tax on their valuable city properties. We have certainly not disregarded the considerations which our correspondent has, with a good deal of bitterness, presented as arguments against an alteration in the land tax. They are arguments of which the farming organisations are making the very most at the present time. When, it is remembered that the land tax at the present time yields only 6J per cent, of the total revenue from taxation, and has yielded a steadily diminishing proportion every year since 1923, it is rather difficult to believe that the new taxation, even though it is being imposed at a time that is unfavourable to the rui’al community, will have quite such dire effects as the protests of farmers’ organisations suggest will flow from it. But we agree that the proposals should be thoroughly examined, for which purpose an opportunity should be afforded to fanners to present their case to a parliamentary committee, before the legislation is passed that will embody the Government’s scheme of taxation.