INCREASED LAND TAXES

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 72, Issue 260, 1 November 1929, Page 3

INCREASED LAND TAXES

CRITICISM IN UPPER HOUSE THE MEASURE FINALLY PASSED [ Per Press Association J WELLINGTON, Oct. 30. Resuming the debate on the Land and Income Tax Amendment Bill in the Legislative Council to-day, the Hon. R. Scott expressed regret that the measure had come down in its present form. The farmers had been promised cheap money and no increased taxation and the Bill was rather a shock to them. They did not object to paying a fair share of taxation, but the Bill unfairly discriminated between town'and country lands and against those who carried the responsibility of the main productioN of the Dominion. Men were penalised whose propcrtio were not suitable for subdivision, sain Mr Scott. Moreover, the time was inopportune to increase taxation on H.< farming community because of falling prices for the staple products. The Bill would seriously affect the farmers’ security and would not facilitate *land settlement. Taxation could have been raised in other directions. The Hon. E. Newman said Mr Scott was unduly pessimistic about farming in New Zealand. He regretted it should have been deemed necessary tu bring down tJie present proposals. The weak point was the want of land class! fication in order to avoid injustice to the man whose land was unsuitable for subdivision. Their Fair Share The Hun. T. 8. Weston submitted that the big landowners were already contributing their fair share to taxation. The Bill did not redound to the credit of the Government because it did not take into account the different classes of people it affected or the ability of the landowners to pay. The mere fact that some men were wealthy prevented them from getting a fair hearing and all their circumstances were not considered. The Government should first have ascertained what lands ought to be subdivided. The graduated land tax should be allowed to stand and land or income tax be made payable, which ever was the greater. Notice should be given of the intention to take surplus land, enabling the owner to dispose of a portion of it. The fact that a hardship clause was necessary condemned the Bill. The procedure involved in appealing would involve expense which might be an annual recurrence. The Hon. J. G. Garland also advocated a fair deal for all and said the Bill did not give it. It would not and could not achieve the objects it was designed for and it was framed on wrong lines. The Hon. J. Craigie favoured the increased taxation as a means of breaking up estates. He supported the measure on general lines. The Hon. J, B. Gow differed from the methods proposed for bringing about subdivision. Graduated taxation ho said, should be general in application and ensure that no injustice was done to anyone. It was improper to penalise land which was legitimately held, which was unsuitable for subdivision and which the State was not prepared to purchase. Taxing of the Land Sir Francis Bell declared it was not the Council’s fault if the Bill were; passed. They could not be blamed. He disagreed with the necessity for extra land tax and maintained that powers already existed to enable estates to be broken up without taxing men off their land. The Bill was a bad engine and was calculated to gain the support of a particular class of the community.

Replying to the discussion the Leader of the Council, the Hon. T. K. Sidey, justified the Government's proposals and declared the mortgage exemption provisions actually did not go, far enough. It was on too liberal a scale. The Bill contained no new principle in respect to super-taxation. Such a means of obtaining extra revenue was inevitable. There was no ground for the suggestion that the increased taxation was dictated by a certain class. He admitted it was a pity a commission had not been set up to determine what lands were suitable for subdivision, but pointing out that the proposals were to operate for a year only. He expressed the hope that the hardship clause commission would be able to throw considerable light on that question. The Bill was passed with a minor technical amendment.

The Land and Income Tax (annual) Bill was also passed. The Customs Amendment Bill was received from the House and read a first time.