"WHO PAYS?

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2805, 24 June 1916, Page 10

"WHO PAYS?

Sir,—Referring to yonr leader under this heading, I think you are wrong in assessing the amount of the land tax paid by farmers or on rural land. , In former Government statistics the land tax is divided between rural land?, boroughs, and cities, the proportion in unimproved values being about twothirds rural, and one-third towns and boroughs. The number of payers of land tax is also nearji' one-third, or ebout the same number as pay income tax, which formerly came from commerce and manufacturers only. You should, therefore, show about 31,C00 land taxpayers on farm lamß and 13,000 payers on lands in towns and boroughs, who also pay land tax. The amount of land , tax, M,018,356, would then bo reduced by one-third, 'which, added .to. income tax paid, .ill,152,11!), would mako tho burden on city ratepayers the larger. Thus: Land tux, dC1,048,358, ■ less one-third, from town lands—,£69B,9ol. Add income tax, £210,000, from country lands; total, .£938,90-1. Income tax, towns and boroughs— ,£1,152,113, to which add £319,452; land tax, £1,501,571, or in proportion <"f 5 for towns and boroughs to 3 for farm lauds. Of course these'figures are only approximate. as the full returns will not appear till the Year Book is i6ued. It is also to ba remembered that local ' rates in towns and boroughs are much heavier than in the country.—l am, etc., MANUFACTURER. [The main point of our article was that the burden of war taxation had. bean placed on the shoulders of the few and not on the people generally—the few being the payors of land and income taxe?, which had been largely increased. This, of course, includes the income tax payers arid land owners in both town and country. The relative- contributions of town and country are not easy to determine,' but our correspondent's figures so far as they relate to the 'particular taxes mentioned aro probably fairly close to. the mark.]