THE LAND BILLS.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIC, Issue 13396, 20 September 1907, Page 7

THE LAND BILLS.

SOMIC (.TUTK.TSMK. A landowner. vlmse busings acumen would he recognised if his name mw> not withheld, stated to a "Herald" representative yesterday some objections to the (!nvf-iT.uK'!it's ]in>pi.'.svd .Land Assessment jJill, from the large landowners' point of view. In this connection '-large landholder" is to he understood as one who holds land enough to be worth taking away from him for subdivision, even in a smalt way. The fundamentl objection, he said, ii that while- the Government pro]tore to take any mans land at- the valuation plus a. small ])erccnt;:ge (this- percentage apparently not yet fixed, but lias been mentioned) tlie valuations themselves are made by Government officers. 'His owner •|i:ls a right la object to a valuation as too low; hut :ee what thin involves. The object of th? Government valuation is to Secure an equitably fair valuation throughout a. district, taking quality of soil and other conditions into account. We ina-v ;:ssanie that that is approximately effected, but it does not follow that the as.-ess-muit actually represent the real value. ■Suppose then that iliere is uis pop&rly in a district which it would suit the Government- to acquire. The owner, l'* cognising this, can protect himself mily by seeing that- lm property is assessed at its full value, by objecting to the a-sseri-mnnt as too low. * That, would be -i- hardship to impose on any inan, in one of two wavs. If his objection was sustained, iie would -either have to pay a- larger share of rates and land tax than his neighbours, and his neighbours .would have their assessments increased too, and they would think liini unneighbourly for having interfered with their position as tax-pavers in that way. It- seems to be introducing ;tn immoral element into the busintiss. The landowner, to retain bis property, must on the one hand see that his assessment- is of full value, and then to avoid unfairness, must interfere in Ms neighbours' assessments, and he would never be forgiven it.

Another point, about this taking of land on the assessed value, plus any percentage, is the fluctuations in values be-t-ween the assessment. A valuation may bj made at- a time when the rural industries are depressed and land values: low. tiefore five years elapse—the usual time between ;i)>stesments— values may have risen considerably. It would not be failthen for the Government to step in and .say that they would take the land at- a low valuation. The Government should hi limited to the time of assescmerit-; should say at the sitting! of the Assessment Court, thai they would take the hind, or have no power to take it until the. next assessment, was made and settled. Otherwise the owner to be safe must Gee that this land is valued at tiptop price for the next five years, "and take the risk of a drop in values. He musttake the risk and the Government take the advantage. Turning to another, but related subject, our informant said he believed 1.1 11 it) graduated land tax, and also in the graduated income! tax; but that they ought to be made something. more like equal. The land tax is very much heavier than the income tax. 'Hie land tax is levied on a capital value, from Id to 3d in the £ Suppose a man makes 7 . per cent, out (if his land investment, - which is probably over the average. Then for every £IOO he makes £7 a. year. On this under the land tax. lie pays, if a small capitalist 8s 4d, if a - large* capitalist 255. Rut the income lax 011 each £7 is only 3s 6d in the case of small, and 7s in Ill's case of large incomes.. It is manifest inat-the.se taxe,« r.sed to be brought more into equality with one another. . THE GRADUATED TAX. A REPLY TO CRITICISM. Special—By Telegraph. WELLINGTON, September 19.' During the debate on the graduated taxatioa proposals of the Government the Minister of Lands took the opportunity of replying < L o criticism levelled against'him by the Opposition in' regard' to a "change of front " in substituting the graduated tax for the original limitation proposals. The Hon. Mr McNab said that the leader of the Opposition had failed to recognise that all over the colony prominent "men connected with the farmers' Union had undergone a very considerable change of opinion regarding this question of the.limitation of estates. He found throughout the colony a, very divided opinion on the question of tenures, but- not a single shadow of division of opinion on -this portion of the Government's policy—to absolutely cut i down the area of land that the Govern- ! ment- proposed a man should hold. The only complaint made afc the meetings he had addressed in the recess was that their proposals were not strong ,enongk. At J>evm the leaders of the Farm ere' Union, men most respected but known to be sympathetic- with the holders of large estates untrammelled by any limitation, entirely ehanged their policy. They were told by rhi delegates at- that conference that not only did they believe in the principle) of the limitation of large estates, but they would support the practice of it, and the delegates further declared that the sooner it was done the better it would be for tha (Farmers' Unions of the colony; and from thiit day to tins lie did not suppose there would be- more than welve men who would vote against the Bill as it stood. What a change had taken place, buit— Mr Massey: "Why didn't you stick to vour Bills?''

Mr McNab: " Why didn't you stick to your opinion? Why the lion, gentleman even now is in the position of believing in limitation in principle but directly we want to put it into practice he says—'No, that's not, the way to do it -;let people die off and. then divide their estates. (Laughter).' " Mr Massey: "You'll die some day." Mr McNab: " Yes; but I won't stand in the way of putting this Bill on' the Statute Book. Now, regarcJing what is known as the ' tomahawk' clause the lion, gentleman said before ' why not have a graduated tax?' yet when we put it forward and ask him to supiiort it, he doesn't like it. The lion, gentleman believes in the glorious principle of limitation of estates but don't put it into practice. (Laughter.) " EVADING A TAX. Various ingenious methods of evading the laud tax have been successfully resorted to; in fact the Premier stated when speaking on the Land and Income Tax Assessment Bill that the law at present is quite ineffective to deal with the serious •takings of revenue caused by tricks. One illustration of how the legal burden can be avoided was given by the Premier. A firm's land is assessed separately, as also is the separate estate of each partner, consequently if A owns land worth £IOO,OOO he would be rendei'ed liable to a tax at the rate of 20 per cent, which, not counting the 25 per cent, increase proposed, would amount to £IOOO, but if lis gives his son B a nominal half share in his estate as a partner, then A is taxed on £50,020 at- the rate of 10s and A and J» are jointly taxed 011 the other £50,000 a!, the same rate and so the total tax paid i:-i only £SOO. There is nothing at present (o prevent a- land-owner from establishing a private company of which he practically owns all the shares-, and transferring half his land to it. thus saving half the graduated tax in the same manner as a. landed

proprietor who had a. sou to shoulder half Ihe responsibility. The new Bill will remedy the existing law which has made evasions ea<y and so extensive.