The Dominion. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1910. DELUDING THE PUBLIC.

Dominion, Volume 3, Issue 919, 12 September 1910, Page 6

The Dominion. MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1910. DELUDING THE PUBLIC.

We have been asked to express our views on 'certain (aspects of the Death Duties Act of last.' session not touched upon in our previous articles. The misapprehension which exists concerning this measure is so widespread—and. we regret, to think the public have been intentionally misled—that we feci that it is of the greatest importance that no opportunity should be missed of exposing the misstatements that have been spread broadcast. Somo of the misleading assertions made concerning the Act are no doubt due to ignorance of the real effect of its sions.. We notice that Mr. Ell, .in a recent speech on the : Financial Statement,. referred to the incidence of 'this and-other taxation on- the farmers. Wo are free to confess that ho 'statement of. Mil. Ell 'on this or any other political subject that we can call to mind- at the moment would appeal to us as worth quoting for its-intrinsic value, but now and again •we come across" a statement of this member which , in worth attention for the purpose of showing how little a certain class of talkative member knows of the subjects he discusses so glibly. In the. speech wo refer to there arc,, at least two paragraphs worth extracting with a view to demonstrating to tho settlers of the country that when taxation is . foreshadowed they are;ontifely in the -..hands'/.of the lawyer element in the Cabinet. That .lawyer element at present consists of a gentleman whose .legal, attainments cannot be denied/but whose knowledge/of the hopes and, aspirations of "the country settlers ofthe colony, is simply . non-existent. One result of overloading taxing statutes is that no one but a lawyer can their incidence. Consequently this country which ostensibly follows the traditions/of England, under which the people tax themselves by. their representatives in -Parliament, is in reality being taxed session after session, by the Attorney-General, who is not only not a representative of the people, but .is actually one ofthe rejected of the people.. The statements of Mr. Ell to which, we refer-are: '-

, "Has the taxation on deceased persons' estates affected the masses of the people? I say that not one of those forms of. taxation have been settled on the small farmers or on the masses' of the people." Then again, referring to the old property tax.

' "Sir, what was the property tax? A man paid on his sheep, on his horses, on his dairy herd, on his house, on-lii<! f'"V niture, and even' on his wearing apparel up'to.a certain amount. Impiei..eiiio-.,<;i'e free, but on.the whole, value of his property,, inoluding his live stock, he paid tax at the,value of Id. in the ;£. what do we. do with him now? Wo do. not tax his horses, or his sheep, or his cattle, or his fences, or his house, or his wearing apparel."

Now,' by applying the second statement which is correct as far as annuartaxation in a.man's lifetime is concerned to the first statement (which is incorrect), weihope to be able to show to the farmers Olthis country that their wives and ch.il-' dren are delivered over to the Philistines as soon as the sturdy breadwinner himself is out of the waj. Does the farmer understand, 'that when the valuer for death duties comes along not a single article lie owns is exempted—foals, calves, dis/ used implements, and all the waste paraphernalia that inevitably gathers on a farm are ruthlessly m eluded 1 Personal effects; from : his Sunday, han'dkerchief to a half-used box of pills, all have their value allotted and taxed. How many farmers are there in the community who do not assess their possessions on-such a basis of valuation at more than £1000? Now/ on properties valued oh.this generous basis .at from £500 to £1000, the liberal'reduction in duty effected by the. much-lauded new Act varies from the munificent sum of five shillings to the munificent sum of twenty-five shillings. But on properties of from £1000 upwards the duty, as we ha,ve shown in a previous article, is very largely increased., We refer, of course, to properties left by a man to the'children he is morally and legally bound to provide for. That this result has been brought about by the deliberate omission from the new. Act of the. remedial clause in the old Act; by which half the duty was remitted for the benefit of a man's children no one who has looked into the question can doubt for a moment. In fixing.the graduation under the new Act ah able but unpractical lawyer has sacrificed everything to symmetry. In effecting this object'and at the same time indulging in his desire to get at the big man he has largely increased the duty on the smaller estates. It is only now that the oppressive effect of the retrospective clauses of the new Act are beginning to be understood. Does the farmer or citizen of moderate means know that.the property he put in his wife's name ten, twenty, thirty, or even forty years ago is now included in his dutiable estate and taxed accordingly, unless, indeed, he got a separation order or a divorce from his wife at least three years before his death? At the risk of being tedious wc cpioto the section of the new Act which reopens these . longi forgotten transactions.'

"In computing for the purposes of this Act the final balance of the estate of a deceased person his estate shall be deemed to include and consist of the following classes of property: (a) '.-.'' (b).... (c) Any property comprised in any gift within the meaning'of Part IV of this Act made by the deceased at ANY TIME, WHETHER DEFORE OR AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF THIS AcT.u'n- . loss boua-fid'opossessioii'and enjqymonti has been assumed by.. the beneficiary, not less than three'years bofore tho death of tho deceased and has been thenceforth ' retained to the entire EXCLUSION OF THE DECEASED 01' of any benefit _ to him by contract or _ otherwiso if the property was situated in New Zealand at - the time

of the gift." This section, we may add, does not apply to gifts of under £500 in value, but if the words "entire exclusion" .bear the meaning that the ordinary layman attaches to. them the man who put his house in his wife's name at the time when a socalled Tory Government did not penalise such transactions has now got to pay up to a Liberal Government for his temerity. We have taken the trouble to examine Mr. Lloyd-George's recent Act to ascertain how ' the English Government dealt with past transactions and find that the retroactive clause of that statute only reopens transactions that took place after the date in 1908 upon which the Budget, was first foreshadowed. We see no very serious objection to-that, for during the time that--a.Bill takes to -, go through Parliament those people who could gauge its probable effect might take steps to avoid it by disposing of portions of their property. Retrospective legislation may.be unavoidable now and again, but the average Britisher has an inherent and well-grounded detestation, of it. We cannot find wordß sufficiently strong -to characterise the abominable nature .of retrospective legisla-, tion that can go-back and reopen transactions which may 'have taken place almost at the date of the foundation of the colony; With the industrious man who has acquired and retained large possessions wo" can expect to find no sympathy from the present Govornment. The new Land Bill (Expropriation.Bill - would be a better name for it), which proposes to seize a... man's land without either paying for it or relieving'him from the, heavy annual charges for graduated tax, .'ordinary land tax, and local rates, is only another instance, of the .'reckless -.nature., ol "the. legisla-' tion'suggested by the present party in power. That the Prime Minister has admitted the gross injustice of the proposal does not relieve the draftsman who perpetrated the atrocity. .We have referred to it in previous articles and only mention it now to inquire what the position would be if the owner died during the compulsory, tenancy.': How his representatives would manage within six months of his death to, find in cash the enormous sum required for death duties with the property seized by, the State and not paid for passes our comprehension. That the Expropriation Bill would have gone through as it stood had it; not been for Opposition criticism we dp not doubt, for from the followers of the present Government,. with one. or two', exceptions/nothing in'the way of incisive criticism can be expected. That. the. Government, /with 'its' obedient majority, can force reckless legislation-through :the House, /is only top true, but the settlers of the colony whom we are glad to say. are against : the Government almost to a man have looked for -years to 'the;' Opposition to -remedy or'modify -theworst features of maladministration.The net result is not discouraging. On questions of railway management,, superannuation funds, - taxation; and, finance/by steadily stick-, ing to'their task the Opposition have again and again successfully exposed the bungling and- recklessly, unjust methods. of the -Government.,;, The country as a whole does not yet fully realise what it hasbeen saved from— the .'■ extremes, . of , legislative muddlement, , financial '. confusion, and administrative excesses which would: have. developed had the ' proposals, of the Government'.during .the past few years been, permitted to come into effect, as introduced. Perhaps the Land Bill just broughtdown will open the eyes of the public to a full realisation of the recklessness-and incapacity of the men who constitute the Govern-, ment of New Zealand to-day. .: '