TAXING PROPOSALS.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18351, 23 August 1929, Page 6

TAXING PROPOSALS.

FARMERS' PROTEST MEETING, B / TulevrttDb —Pr«M« ▲■■•alakloa. WELLINGTON, August 22. A special meeting of primary producers, called by the New Zealand Farmers’ Union, was held at the Farmers’ Institute to-day, to consider the taxation proposals of the Government. There was aai attendance of about! 70 farmers from different parts of the Dominion. Mr W. J. Poison M.P. (president of the Farmers’ Union) was m the chair. He thanked members lor attending at such short notice. The idea had gone forth amongst farmers that he undertook to speak in the House on behalf of the Farmers’ Union. He did no tiling of the kind, but spok® as the representative of his constituents, and also expressed his own opinion. Tlie Union had not been compromised in any way. As a matter of fact, there were some very important points in the Government’s proposals which totally disagreed with. His only anxiety was to see the best done for the farming community—that and nothing else. Assuming till at the Premier was rigli: when he declared that additional taxation was necessary, the proposals were: (1) That large farmers are to pay greater taxation through income tax ; (2) that the largo farmer shall pay taxation on his debts ; (3) that the large farmer shall pay a graduated land tax; (4) that the farmer shall pay all duties through the customs. He was of the opinion that economies could have been effected without seriously affecting the officers of the public service. He was conv/nced that tihe bulk of the people of New Zealand, and also the bulk of the farming community were most emphatically in favour of closer settlement. As an individual, he was in favour of steepening the graduated land tax on large estates. He expressed the opinion that there must be a thorough reclassification of land valuation. He was in agreement with anything that would bring about reasonable land settlement, provided, of course, that undue hardships were not inflicted upon anybody. A graduated tax was one of the quiVrkest ways to bring about closer settle ment. A voice: Tt is a wrong principle. Mr Poison: It is a principle that has been in existence for a good many years, and I have not seen anv Government, Reform or Liberal, which haa sought to reverse that principle. Ho agreed that a man should not be taxed on his indebtedness. It was subsersive of British justice. A voice : Why impose it on the big mortgage man P Mr Poison replied that the principle had been in existence for many years. The tax disappeared at £15,000. He disagneod with the Government’s proposal. A conference in committee discussed the question whether the Premier should be invited, the result being a decision that the conference should proceed with business without Sir Joseph Ward’s presence.

It was decided to ask him to receive a deputation in the afternoon. Some discussion took place whether a paper prepared by Professor Murphy should be read.

Objections were raised on point of time.

Eventually Professor Murphy withdrew, but a motion was carried thanking him for going to the trouble of preparing a paper, the value of which was recognised. Mr Marshall (Marton) moved: “We protest against any super-tax on land starting at £12,500, unimproved value. It will penalise the most useful producer of stock and produce. We think a super-tax isi wrong in principle, but if it has to be imposed, it should not start at less than £20,000 unimproved value.’’

This produced the longest discussion of the morning, an amendment being proposed “That we strongly protest against the Government’s decision to promote legislation to strike a levy on farm lands, and a super-tax on land, and the reduction in the amount of mortgage exemption, and that this meeting is convinced that the present system of land tax is not equitable, and suggests that a graduated income tax on all taxable incomes, however, should bo substituted.” The main tenor of the discussion wax that no one section of the community should, bo selected for taxation, but that taxation should be equitable for all, also that the taxation proposals were going to bear very heavily in particular cases, particularly where families were coming on. Many properties were not suitable for cutting up. Mr Currie (Wanganui) said there was no chance that any Government New Zealand was ever likely to have giving up the land tax. If there was any suggestion from the meeting tha fanners should pay income tax, they would only be taken as asking for dual taxation.