POLITICAL NOTES.

Wairarapa Daily Times, 10 September 1924, Page 5

POLITICAL NOTES.

“WHERE, OH WHERE?” Mr Witty had the floor in the House last night. , A Labour member: Come over here. Mr Witty: I am quite content where I am. Labour: But where are you? OVERCROWDING. Mr. P. Fraser, rising at 5.28 p.ni. yesterday to move for leave to introduce his Housing Amendment Bill, said that ho proposed to talk the motion out. There were only two minutes before tlm House must rise for the dinner adjournment, and there was no chance of his having opportunity of moving the second reading of the bill; therefore, lie must take the opportunity of speaking another day on the motion to introduce thte measure. Mr. W. D. Lysnar: You have already said it all over and over again. Mr Fraser retorted that with . ten people living in a single room within a few miles of Wellington, it was time that the matter was threshed out in the House, and that something was done adequately to cope with the housing problem. (Hear, hear.) BANKERS’ THREATS. Mr. T. M. Wilford (Hutt) has given notice to ask the Minister of Finance: (1) Whether the banks of New Zealand are demanding that if dairy companies make remittances except through the (banks that the rate of overdraft on the accounts of dairy companies would be raised from 6) to 7 per cent? (2) Whether he will have a circular note issued to the various dairy companies of New Zealand asking them the direct question as to whether any such threats have been made by any banks? (3) Whether, in the event of him finding that such threats have been made, he will inform the House of the fact and bring down legislation to deal severely with any banks which can be proved to have made such threats?

REFORMER OPPOSES BILL. Mr F. J. Eolleston, speaking on the Land and Income Tax Bill in the House yesterday, opposed the remissions, and urged that the existing taxation was no more than was required to meet the liabilities of the country. But if remissions were to be granted to grant them on the lines of the bill would, he maintained, be simply to aggravate the injustices and anomalies of our tax system. We were trying to get rid of a war debt of £80,000,000,- but under the bill, ho maintained, the income tax on incomes up to £IOOO would be less than that paid in 1913-14. Further, though the maximum rate of income tax was 5s 10 2-5 d in the £, the average rate paid on an income of £IO,OOO to £20,000 was only 3s 3.28 din the £. He did not think, therefore, that there was any ground for saying that our income tax was excessive. The figures as o the cost of living showed conclusively that the previous reductions of taxation had not effected any material reduction in the cost of living. The bill, he added, also meant that many landholders would be paying less in land tax than in 1913-14, so that the 10 per cent remission was not justified. INTERESTING COMPARISON In the financial year 1913-14, stated Mr. Massey in the House yesterday, the amount of land tax paid was £767,451, the ordinary land tax being Id in the £1; while the graduated land tax on holdings of not less than £SOOO unimproved value, was l-32nd of a penny in the £l, increasing by graduation to a maximum of 5 5-6 d in the £1 to £200,000. But in 1923-24, the land tax paid totalled £1,426,462; the rate of the land tax being Id in the pound on land not exceeding £IOOO unimproved value, increased bv one-20,000th of a penny per £1 up to the maximum of 7 17-20 d in the pound. The amount of income tax paid in 1913-14 was £554,271, as against £2,781,531 in 1923-24. In 1913-14 the rate of income tax for individuals, on incomes not exceeding £4OO a yerir, was 6d in tho pound; from £4Ol to £14,000, Gd increased by 3-400ths of a penny for every pound in excess of £400; from £l4Ol to £2400, 14d, increased by 1400th of a penny for every pound over £1400; and exceeding £2400, -Jd in the pound. For companies in 1914, the rate was, not exceeding £I2OO, Is in the pound; from £l2Ol to £I6OO, Is in the pound increased by 2-lOOths of a penny for every pound in excess of £1200; from £l6Ol to £2400, Is 2d in the pound, increased by l-400th of a penny for every pound exceeding £1600; and over £2400, Is 4d in the pound. The rate of income tax for 1923-24 on individuals with incomes not exceeding £4OO a year was Is in the pound, loss 20 per cent.; on incomes exceeding £4OO, but not exceeding £6OOO, Is in the pound, increased by l-100th of a penny for every pound in excess of £4OO, less 20 per cent.; exceeding £6OOO, 5s 8d in the nouiid, increased by l-200th of a penny for every pound in excess ot £6OOO, less 20 per cent; and on incomes of *IO,OOO and over, 7s 4d in the pound, less 20 per cent.; making a maximum of 5s 10 2-f)d; less in all cases a 10 per cent reduction for earned incomes up to £2OOO. That, was an exceedingly interesting comparison, and would give members sonic idea of what was intended by the bill.

“TO ESCAPE SHIPWRECK.” Mr Massey said in the House yesterday, when referring to the Land and Income Tax Bill, that he had had some very startling evidence put before him recently, which showed that we could not increase, but must reduce, taxation, if we were to escape shipwreck. Germany had reduced her taxation very considerably, having practically wiped out her national debt by manipulating

the mark. The Hon. J. A. Hanan: Swindling! The Prime Minister: That is a hard name for it; but I think it about expresses the opinion of most of us. (Hear, hear.) But, ho added, in France the burden of taxation was very heavy, owing to her military expenditure, and he believed that that burden was responsible for the change of Government that took place in France recently. He thought, he continued, that they had settled the sugar difficulty for some time to come. Mr G. W. Forbes: Only for a year. The Prime Minister remarked that it might be for less than a year, but it was settled indefinitely, and he pointed out the prospect of a reduction in taxation was one of the factors that led the sugar company to reduce its demands. That was a case in point, showing how the reduction of taxation tended to lessen the cost of living; and he had repeatedly told the House that it was impossible to reduce the cost of living without reducing taxation. Big business houses undoubtedly passed taxation on to the consumers, and consequently prices kept np.