Thames Star THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1934. FINANCE BILL.

Thames Star, Volume LXV, Issue 19254, 8 November 1934, Page 2

Thames Star

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 1934. FINANCE BILL.

"W'rth maffo* toward* none: with oharityfor all; with firmn«a« in tha right, ©a God gives us to aea tha rich*."—Lincoln.

The provision, in the Finance Bill (No. 3) for a rebate of 12£ per cent, on county; rates has met with such a hostile reception in the JHouse of Representatives that there seems some likelihood:of it being dropped by the Government. The opposition was so vigorous that Mr. Coates, who was in charge of the Bill, confessed himself "rather taken aback." There is little reason why he- should have been, for. to say that the provision is clumsy and inadequate is to be very moderate indeed. In the first place, the rationale of the provision is not easy to discover. If it is intended,, to remove the reproach that the Government is offering no immediate assistance to the dairy farmer, then it is much wider than its purpose. ''■•' Nor is it easy to believe that the dairy farmer will feel his position materially eased by si rebate of one-eighth of his rates. If, on the other hand, the rebate expresses the Government's belief that, agricultural land is too heavily taxed for the maintenance of roads, then the Government should give reasons for its belief.' The Dairy Industry Commission, which seems to have investigated the question with some care, was definitely of the opinion that agricultural lands bore no more than their fair share of roading costs. The Commission's opinion can hardly be taken as a final pronouncement on the whole question ol rural rating; but it can be taken as showing the need for a very careful investigation. In the second place, it seems that the rebate will be another direct imposition on the motorists of New Zealand. The rebate is to be paid in the first instance out of the Main Highways Fund, but. in order that the maintenance programme of the Main Highways Board shall not suffer, an equivalent amount is to be transferred from the consolidated fund, reducing accordingly the amount of petrol tax in the consolidated fund available fof highways, purposes. It is a very devious transaction; but what it seems to mean is that a rebate on rates is being charged against motoi'ists. In the third place, the provision for a rebate involves serious administrative difficulties. As the counties have already discovered, the method of reducing rates by refunding amounts already paid is clumsy and expensive, necessarily involving a great amount of extra clerical work. Moreover, on this occasion an attempt has been made to avoid the anomaly whereby the rebate benefits owners of suburban house properties. County councils are to receive subsidies equal to 12| per cent, of the rates levied "on property used exclusively or principally for agricultural, horticultural or pastoral purposes." The Government, it appears, is thrusting upon the counties the difficult and expensive task of classifying their rating lands. When it is remembered that the rebate is presumably a temporary measure, it does not seem that the benefits conferred will be worth , the trouble and expense involved in confei'ring them.