STRONG CRITICISM

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19129, 25 September 1936, Page 9

STRONG CRITICISM

GOVERNMENT’S TAXATION DOMINION’S POSITION CANNOT LEAD WORLD DEBATE NOT BROADCAST (Per Press Association.) WELLINGTON, last night. In the House of Representatives today, The Hon. W. Nash moved the second reading of the Land and Income Tax (Annual) Poll and the Land and Income Tax Amendment Bill, which were considered together. Regarding payment of the Income tax by instalments, Mr. Nash said it was permissive on the part of the Government by* Order-iu-Ccuincil to fix several dates on which the instalments should be paid. Mr. W. .1. Poison (Nat., 'St nit ford) said the House now knew where the money was to come from; it had to come from confiscatory taxation on the thrifty. . That was the road, and that was the method. If the Government had disclosed before the election that all its promises meant only a heavy turn in the taxation screw, lie wondered if the Labour Party would have hail the success it did have on election dav.

Mr. A. F. Moncnr (Lab., Rotorua) It was a good one.

Mr. Poison: It was a lucky one, but it will not occur again. Mr. Poison went oil to say that from the already ineagre national income, the Government was going to take a double toll in the way of more payment for workers and record taxation for the Government. If,they were giving more payment to the workers well and good, but if the Government were going to extract further taxes the effect would be more serious than the Government realised. The Government’s policy was realty an attempt to take two crops from one field. Industry could not function without reward, and he was satisfied that the Government knew that and that the present measures were the means of advancing its common ownership plan. The Labour Party was plunging blindly towards its extraordinary objective without any consideration for the injustice they would create in doing it. LAND TAX DEFEND Ml) Mi-. .1. Thorn (Lab., Thames) claimed that nothing in the present legislation conflicted in any way with the principles expounded during the election campaign. lie said that if the history of land taxation fosr the last 14 or lfi. years was looked into, it would be seen that the abolition of the graduated land tax was the act of a Government solely determined to help its wealthy land owning friends, ami it would also be seen that the estimated revenue from what was now proposed by the present bill, was considerably less than that collected in the way of graduated land taxation in any year between 1922 and IDPA in elusive.

In 1931, the graduated land lax was abolished. The revenue from land tax then fell, and in 1035-landowners paid £050,000 less than they paid in 1031. No one would deny that so far as land taxation was concerned past Governments had treated the big land-owners with most generous consideration. but generosity to their wealthy land-owning friends did not stop at abolishing the land tax.

In 1924 all incomes derived from land were exempt from payment of the income tax. The Government responsible tried, to make it appear that this was done to assist the small working farmer, but actually the only people to benefit were the well-to-do, and the very rich farmers. It applied only to those receiving incomes in excess of £3OO, and only 5530 land owners were in 'that fortunate position, so it could ba said that practically no small working farmer benefited at all. Taxation, he said, had been transferred from the rich to the poorer sections of the community. TAXATION FOR TENSIONS Mr. S. G. Holland (Nat., Christchurch N.) expressed the opinion that, as the legislation was probably the most important. of the session, and as £1,300,(XL was to be taken from the people, the do bate should have been broadcast. The people had been told over the air where the money was to be spent and they should have been told where it was to come from. He claimed that the graduated land tax would bear very unequally' and very unfairly and, in some eases, would amount to a capital levy.

He believed that the reintroduction of the graduated kind tax was to break up big units but, at times, big units were necessary for economical production. The tax would place finality on capital invested in large concerns. Taxation should be based on the ability of the taxpayer to pay, but that did not apply in this bill, and it would drive another nail into the coffin of private enterprise. He said that provision for hardship eases should be made in the bill. It was placing too much responsibility on an officer to tell him to use his own discretion in such cases.

Mr. J. CL Barclay (Lab., Marsden) denied that the legislation was an attack on private enterprise, nor was it, a, tax on unimproved lands. The Government wanted money to pay pensioners and lie would defend the tax on any platform. He thought any cases of hardship could be sifted out by the Commissioner of Taxes. He agreed that the debate might have been broadcast, so that the people in the country would know how tho money was to be used. Mr. Nash bad said that extra taxation was neded to pay the increase in pensions. LEAD TO CONFISCATION

Sir Alfred Ransom (Nat., Pahiatuaj said Mr. Barclay had let the cat out of the bag when he said the object of the Government in reintroducing the graduate! land tax was not to break up the big estates but to secure money to pay pensions. Despite the election promises of the Prime Minister that there would be no increase in taxation, the Government’s taxation bad now established a record and amounted to £l9 4s per head of tlie population, an increase on the last Government’s taxation proposals of £3 per head of the population. He argued that an increase of more than £3,000,000 in revenue should have been quite sufficient to meet improvements in the social services without having to raise another £I,SCO,OOO by income and land taxes. He thought the graduated land tax particularly unfair in cases if large blocks of land m isolated country. The tax was so unfair in its incidence that it would lead to confiscation. The'Hon. H. T. Armstrong said it vas entirely wrong to say that taxation was higher now than ever it bad been, especially as regards land and income taxation.

Mr. Armstrong said the total rose or fell with the nntionaTincome. It- was rot.

the amount of taxation a man paid that malored. but what lie had left after paying it,. The present. Government, would see that he did have something left. Farmers should not, be exempt from all forms of taxation. “Surely no one would deny that a man with property of an unimproved value of £SOOO could pay more in the pound that, a dairy farmer with 50 acres. Taxation in the aggregate might be higher than it, had been, but, when the incomes of the people were concerned, it was proportionately less. Mr. W. P. Endoan (Nat.. Parnell) said the bill was'another step on the road to socialism. New Zealand was still part, of the world and it was impossible for a country of her size to lend (be world. Excessive taxation was one ‘means of destroying the economic structure of a country. The imposition of land tax disregarded the ability to pay. Tt was wrong in principle arid should not be enforced. The debate was adjourned.