FARMERS' WAR TAXATION

Waikato Times, Volume 88, Issue 13462, 17 April 1917, Page 6

FARMERS' WAR TAXATION

18 THE SYSTEM EQUITABLE?

PROPOSED CONFERENCE

At the meeting o' , [\ branch of the v ;* «ft HaHiiNflta Union or r ' o>V Zealand FarflMJVs' **rtW& x ; the method WVais- , .** ftW& foirV*rar, purposes was%other itto re-introducing his im>tt*i "affirming that tjio present rodbofl'uf taxation as applied to farmers tS'toequitable and unjust, Mr Milne said'-tiie farmers were not trying to ss# ojtot of paying taxes, but they were to do so in a fair and equitably [manner. Under present conditions seme who should pay escaped, vdtoitet others who should escape were called upon to pay large sums. The Dominion's war hill would, it was estimated, amount to £50,000,000. Interest and sinking fund for this amount had to be raised, and the farmers would have to pay the greater portion of it This they were prepared to do, but they wished to do it in a way which would be fair and equitable, and for that reason he favoured a tax on exports and imports. Such a tax would be raised simply, and nobody would feel it. A 5 per cent, tax on exports and 3 per cent, on imports would, it was computed, pay off the debt in about 20 years. The necessaries of life would be admitted free, but luxuries —some of which now escaped—would be taxed.

Mr John McGregor asked how the non-exporter would be got at? Under the export tax he would escape. Mr Milne pointed out that the fact that the export tax would have to be paid at the finish would be kept in mind in every transaction in stock, and thus the breeder and grazier would have to pay their portion through the smaller prices they would receive. Mr Jary considered that prices would be regulated by the law of supply and demand, and that the existence of an export tax would have little influence.

The Chairman considered that the danger would be in the exporter taking too much off, and instanced the operation of the embargo on the exportation of hides, which was followed by a drop of 2s per 1001b on beef, in support of his contention. He suggested a tax on calves and lambs in order to get at the breeder, but in that case the export duty should not be leviable upon fat lambs and veal exported. Mr John McGregor referred to the injustice of the butter-fat tax, stating that it was taking from the poor, struggling dairyman and giving it to the townspeople. Mr Booth at first thought Mr Beauchamp's idea a grand one, but subsequently was convinced that it would be unjust.

Mr C. B. Smith said there was no such thing as an equitable tax, and under any system there was bound to be a lot of unfairness. They should certainly adopt the simpler system if it were no more inequitable. Mr Sturges admitted it was a knotty problem, but favoured the export .tax as the fairer method. It was the finished article which would pay the tax; but there could be no question that it would affect the producer, for the existence of the tax would affect the first sale of any beast.

Mr Masters had devoted a lot of thought to the matter, and favoured an export tax. It was easy to 1 collect and, being leviable upon the finished article, would affect prices throughout. To make up the deficiency he urged increase in stamp duties and a poll-tax on aliens. WAR PROFITS TAX.

Mr John McGregor referred to the unfairness of the operation of the war profits tax, and quoted actual instances to prove his contention that it was unjust. One man who had experienced a phenomenally good season in 1914 had been called upon to pay nothing whilst others who, having just commenced business in that year, had had to pay practically half their profits into the Treasury. Reverting to the export

tax proposal ~^~ would *• .*& tailed to see how it drar- «*Hsfc \\ie chemist and the s<*\ W& thought it would hit the <4siytti#a, who must export all his TWi't'ter, while the breeder, who exported neither mutton nor butter, would escape. The middleman, if he had to pay out £l, made the producer pay 30s, and this alone would be fatal to the success of the proposal. He deprecated movements which were calculated to set town against country, and urged that nothing should be done to widen the present breach.

The Chairman considered the principle of the war profits tax absolutely fair, but there was a great deal of misconception regarding it. For the purposes of the Act those farmers who ■had not kept books were called upon to put a value upon their stock in 1914, before which year the tax was not leviable. Whatever value per head they put upon their stock then was the standard. That was to say, if they valued their cattle at £5 per head in 1914, they were valued at £5 per head at present. The farmer was not called upon to pay taxes upon any difference in value per head that there may be between then and now, so long as he held them; but of course he had to pay if he sold, and also upon the increased number.

Mr Milne remarked that this year he would not have to pay war tax, and he knew he should. He desired to pay, as he did not want the other fellow to pay his share. Mr Anderson suggested that a committee should be set up to discuss the matter with the local Chamber of Commerce.

This proposal met with general approval,' and Mr Milne withdrew his motion in favour of the following: "That a committee be set up to arrange a meeting with the local Chamber of Commerce to discuss the present war taxation with a view to arranging a more equitable scheme, the committee to consist of Messrs Anderson, Jary, J. McGregor, Milne and the chairman, with power to add."—This was carried unanimously.

During the discussion various speakers bore testimony as to the ability and impartiality of the Commissioner of Taxes, who had" always proved ready to adjust dicerences and deal justly with those who submitted their acairs to him for consideration.