PARLIAMENT.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 13536, 12 October 1907, Page 5

PARLIAMENT.

H LEGISLATIVE tOIWCIL^ FRIDAY, OCTOBER; li. (Per jAssoojaftioh.) " WEXLINGTQNrOctober 11. Hon. G. Jcui&s. ocjnfcihued the debate on* the Becond|readrng of the fiAND ANQINCOME TAX BILL. He> was of ojprction that a much more stringent measure _§hqujd h>y y e been passed by the Jtiower Sp\jje.. .file Bill had been described as a socialistic measure. The same had been said of every other reform that had ever, been brought forward. He would have "preferred last year's Bill ;with v its limitation proposals to that before vshev $he Council. It was a scandal that men folding large areas of lana should still bema position to add to their already large holdings. One thing he regretted /about the measure wap this — it would cause partitioning of ,4he land, which would make matters more difficult for the settler than if the hind had "Been resumed by the Government. He would like to see the Government still continuing to purchase land under" the Land for Settlements Act. Hon. W. C. Smith said he agreed wrj&tho Bill, but nothing was to be gaine9 by hurling hard words at those opposed to it. Like others, he favoured last year's Bill, with its limitation clause. The heavy graduated tax to him savoured of an injustice. He did not like the idea of a man being taxed out of the estate which he had legally acquired. Hon. J. Anstey said very few of those members who had spoken had had any practical experience in the matter of paying land tax. The H<m.l Mr Paul had said the Farmers' Union as a general body had no definite opinion on the question of limitation, but Mr Paul, as a member of the Land Commission which had travelled all round the Dominion, must know that that organisa- • tion and the moving spirits associated with it in no way represented the farming classes of New Zealand. The main principles bf the Bill commended themselves to him, but he contended that, the land tax was an extra tax on theirar-* mer, who^had to pay his fair share of; all other taxation. He approved the principle of limitation. He believed ,jbhe land tax should be levied in two ways. There should be land tax to be paid by the owner and .graduated tax to be paid by the occupier. This would do away with many difficulties under the Bill. A man holding a large area should be exempted from the heavy graduated tax if he cut up a oertain percentage of his estate in the first year and so on over a period of, say, five years. He characterised the jumping nature of taxation as a disgrace. For instance, a man. who owned £40,000 worth of land would have to pay £55 more in graduated tax than the man with £39,000 worth, and in general taxes he would have to pay over £100 more. This would not be tolerated. ' ' f Hon. R. A. Loughnan congratulated the Government on its clearness of visiom in regard to the land question. Hon. Mr Wigram approved the general principles of the Bill, but questioned whether it would bo possible to carry out the provisions of the measure in regard to including in the' amount of land subject to the tax shareholders? -interests in land held by a company. N ■ Hon. Mr Tuoker. objected to what ho called the duplicity of the intention of the Jpill.", If a man held a large area of land' lie was* called a social pest, and if he subdivided it the proceeding was called evasion. He objected to retrospective legislation. He approved, however, of the main principles of the #ill. At 4.55 p.m. the debate was a.djoukied on the motion of the Horn T. K. Micdonald, and 1 the Council rose. . " 'V