The Waipukurau Press. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 1933. SOME LARGE INCOMES

Waipukurau Press, Volume XXVIII, Issue 64, 9 March 1933, Page 4

The Waipukurau Press. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 1933. SOME LARGE INCOMES

In the course of the circular issued by the New Zealand People’s Protection Party appears the statement that there were 18 income returns in 1931 which divided between them £3,927,000 —-averaging of course well over £200,000 each. It was shown that these returns had actually increased during 1931 by £1,825,000 —nearly £2,000,000 extra profit. These returns were compared with the position of the 70,000 people who are obliged to live on £l/10/- or less per week and keep their families. The figures are correct in part, as revealed by the New Zealand Year Book, but the actual figures for 1 929-1 930 and 1930-31 were:—-£2,845,178 and £3,927,744 respectively—an increase

of £1,082,566 for the year. Such taxation returns should not, however, be confused with individual income returns, the highest mark in which did not exceed £40,000 in pre-slump years, unless perchance forming a dominant part in some company holding. There was a shrinkage to £3,062,525 in the income returns of £lOO,OOO and over for 1931-32, but this figure was in excess of 1929-30 and 1928-29. The taxation on the incomes under review exceeds 8/- in the £, but it is not subject to any higher graduated rate than much

smaller returns —a flat rate operating from £B7OO upwards. The “Press” has for many years contended that company taxation should be individualised —as in the Homeland, the graduated principle to be more scientifically and equitably applied, with some relief perchance for those below the £B7OO mark. Consistent with the old basis of exemption from income taxation we have from time to time urged an equivalent land tax exemption increase, viz. £3OOO

unimproved value of land, on which, under usual conditions, at 10 per cent., £3OO could be earned, plus £5OO value extra per child (equal to £5O). The statesmen preferred to exempt £5OO value, and impose a flat rate of land taxation as opposed to temporarily amending the graduated (settlement) basis.

LOWER INTEREST “There are anomalies inherent in, the plan by which the Government has decided to bring about a reduction of 0 per cent, in local body debts within New Zealand,” the “Christchurch Star” points out in a recent editorial. “One of them is ventilated in the complaint of Mr. E. J. Howard, M.P., that the Loans Board must have known of the impending reduction when it authorised the recent Lyttelton Harbour Board loan, upon which the ink is hardly dry. Another is illustrated in his contention that local body indebtedness overseas is almost large enough to offset, by exchange alone, the 20 per cent, reduction on the, internal debt. These criticisms are substantial enough, but they do not of course meet the urgent need for the levelling down of local body securities simultaneously with Government securities. For some time past these securities have been far too attractive to turn the thoughts of investors towards the private borrower, even when he offers the best security, and if local bodies had not been brought into line in this matter there would have been an abnormal demand for what could only be regarded as a highly privileged security. The extent of Internal re-