THE DRAIN ON THE LAND

Otago Daily Times, Issue 26848, 12 August 1948, Page 4

THE DRAIN ON THE LAND

In common with all other sections of the community, the farmers of New Zealand are becoming increasingly restive under the oppressive burden of taxation which the Labour Government has imposed on the country. The complaint expressed in the report of the New Zealand Meat Producers’ Board is but the latest example of the dissatisfaction that has been spoken at recent meetings of farmers’ organisations and before such bodies as the Sheep Industry Commission and the Local Government Committee. There can be no doubt, as the report makes clear, that the load of taxation has contributed to the deterioration or lack of development of the farm lands of the Dominion. Confronted by a system of taxation that is unjust in its incidence and inequitable in its distribution farmers are becoming reluctant to make capital improvements which would increase production but would make them subject to even heavier demands for taxation. One result of this disinclination on the part of primary producers to expand their activities has been a progressive retrogression in the extent of the land under production. In spite of the efforts that were made to boost production in the war years the total acreage of occupied land declined from 43,160,000 in 1937-38 to 42,888,000 in 1940-41. ! The figures for 1946-47 show the total to be still 60,000 acres less than in 1937-38, but these statistics reveal only one aspect of the situation. Even more serious than the reduction in the area of occupied land is the condition to which many properties have been permitted to deteriorate instead of being maintained in intensive production. At a time like the present, when millions of people are hungry, these idle acres are a national calamity. The reason they are idle is, principally, a lack of labour and machinery, but the fact is indisputable that in many cases the farmer —who, like any other worker, requires an incentive to extra effort—considers that he would be financially penalised for his enterprise. There are good reasons for the farmer’s contention that he bears an inequitable share of the taxation load. Not only does the present system prove burdensome in the case of an income which fluctuates considerably from season to season, but provision must also be made to meet demands for land tax, as well as local body and hospital rating. As the general incidence of taxation rises, the farmer finds added difficulty in building up his capital investments against the time when capital alone might save him. In this respect he is, perhaps, in a position no worse than that of many other owners of businesses, but the value of primary industry as a national investment should, in itself, be sufficient to warrant such measures as may be necessary to ensure its continued efficiency.