TD INCREASE THE REVENUE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16543, 29 September 1921, Page 5

TD INCREASE THE REVENUE.

FARMERS’ UNION FRO. POSALSe

Means by which the Customs revenue of the Dominion could be increased without imposing any burden on persons who avoid luxuries were discussed at yesterday's meeting of the North Canterbury executive of the Farmers’ Union, arising out of the following resolution moved by Mr D. Bates:—

That in view of the financial difficulties that are ahead, this executive suggests that the legislature take into consideration (a) the increase of Customs duties on all articles and goods in th© nature of luxuries; (b) the increase of the tax on amusements and tax on the totalisator; and (c) the amendment of the Monopoly Prevention Act.

Mr Bates said that if an increase in the Customs duties was necessary all articles which were in the nature of luxuries should be more heavily taxed. In this way no man would need to pay the extra taxation unless he desired to do so. He need not purchase luxuries and if ho did he should be prepared to pay the tax. They must not look at the matter from any sectional point of view, but from a national standpoint. He believed also that amusements and the totnlisator should pay greater taxation. The chairman (Mr W. A. Banks) : And beer and whisky as well? Mr Bates: Yes, they are luxuries. Regarding the Monopoly Prevention Act, Mr Bates said the Act was intended to prevent the big, foreign concerns from— importing agricultural implements and squashing out the local industry by means of undue competition. The Act" intended to stop them selling at dumping prices by which it would be possible for them to absolutely destroy tho local industry and in this respect the Act was sound. But the Government in attempting to do a worthy thing did it in a clumsy way and the Act as it now stood did not benefit either the farmers or the country. Agricultural implements came into the country free of Customs duties, yet the Act prevented the importers from selling their implements as low as possible because they could not undersell the locally-made article. The position was most absurd, because the farmer and the country equally did not benefit. In Australia a duty of 25 per cent was imposed on imported implements, yet the prices for the implements were as low as in New Zealand. He considered that if Australia could get 25 per cent duty on implements and still obtain those implements at satisfactory prices, New Zealand should do the same. Mr "W. J. Heney seconded the motion, stating that the suggestions were particularly appropriate at the present time. The suggestions were quit© practicable. especially the proposed amendment of the Monopoly Prevention Act. The chairman said the last suggestion was quite new to him and he considered that it should be possible to put the duty on these implements without affecting the farmers to any extent.

Mr W. Mulholland favoured the proposals, but would like to see the suggestion in regard to th© amusement tax qualified, in order that the purchasers of higher priced tickets should pay a heavier tax. Then in regard to income tax he considered there were numbers of people with quite good incomes who were not paying their full shar© of taxation. He referred to persons holding shares in companies and would like to see the companies taxation imposed on the individual shareholders, rather than on the company. Mr W. Bailey said there were a lot of farm implements that could not be manufactured in New Zealand, and ho believed that if the duty was imposed the local implement manufacturers would join together and raise the prices of their implements to the farmers.

The chairman: It hasn’t been so in Australia.

Mr Bates said that Mr Bailey had raised a question which did not enter into the matter at all as far as his resolution was concerned. Local industries in the Dominion at th© present time had the protection of a high Customs duty and yet the country derived no benefit. This proposal was to divert some of the huge profits made bv the importing firms to the finances of the country. Regarding company taxation, this was a huge question. There was ho doubt pressure would be brought to bear on the Government in regard to this matter. The subject was quite beside the motion, hut it also required consideration. The motion wns carried, Mr Bailey being the ontv dissentient.