LAND TAX

Southland Times, Issue 19590, 11 August 1922, Page 5

LAND TAX

THE ANNUAL BILL SECOND READING OF DEBATE (Per United Press Association.) WELLINGTON, August 10. In the House of Representatives tonight, Mr Massey moved the second reading of the Land Tax Bill. This, he said, was the annual taxing Bill and war no different to other similar Bilks except that he was reducing the super tax from 33A per cent, to 20 per cent., which he regarded as a permanent reduction in taxation and which would absorb between £120,000 and £160,000. He had stated a few day- ago that arrears in land tax amounted to £300,000, but he did not wish to say that tho whole of (his amount belonged to la.-t year, because it did not. He had been asked what the arrears of income tax were, and he was not then able to say, Lut he was now able to tell the House that the amount was £600,000 up to present date. This he did not regard as lo t. because money was coming in every day and mat- | ters were improving daily. The rebate for j prompt payment given last year would, of [course, be discontinued. He referred to i the report, of the Taxation Committee 1 which, he eaid, was a very valuable docu ; ment and which would probably give ri-e ; to an amendment of th? Land and Income Tax Act later on in the session. Mr Wilford said it was perfectly (rue that this country was carrying a bun/, n t>: taxation which could not be increased. Whether this was due to extravagance on the part of the Government, might be controversial, but whatever the cause taxation must be reduced to permit of increased production, which was t’z only thing (hat would help them out of the present situation. What he complained of in these circumstances was that this was only a piecemeal measure, and that lhe House could not properly discuss this important question in the absence of the general taxation policy of the Government. Mr Massey said the Department must have authority to collect the tax. Other wise he would have liked to hold it back but he was unable to do so. Continuing, Mr Wilford said he did not oppose the reduction in taxation, but. be did object to the Government’s method of bringing the reduction about. Mr R. McCallum (Wairau) protested that the Public Accounts Committee was not consulted before the reduction embodied in the Bill was agreed to. Nothing ?o embittered the work:; year’s rebate to wealthy landowner-, and when this Bill was in committee he proposed to move that no concession be given to estates worth more than £lO,OOO, allowing the “hardship” clause to operate in cases of ownens not in a position to pay. Mr H. E. Holland (Buller) wanted know where the money was coming from to make good the revenue remitted under this proposed concession to land owners He could not help feeling that it meant another offensive against the wages of the workers. The debate was continued by Messrs Campbell, Young, Nosworthy, Hawken, and Lysnar, who supported the Government’s proposals, while Mr Sullivan opposed them After midnight the debate was carried on by Mr A. Harris, Sir John Luke, Messrs McCombs, Mitchell, Howard, and Horne. I The Premier, in reply, said he hoped those members who were opposed to reduced taxation as proposed by the Govern ment would have the courage of their opinions and go into the lobby and vote against it. The second reading was carried on the voices, and the House rose at 12.35 a.m.