WAR TAXES

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2822, 13 July 1916, Page 6

WAR TAXES

TnE POSITION OF THE BACKBLOCKER. Pir,—"We the undersigned, in common with many of our neighbours, aro increasing our total income by breakingill virgin bush. These incomes are less than tiicy should have been were there no war, because labour, stores, wire, grass-seed, and all material have been raised iu price by the war, while we have derived no advantage from the increased price of stock/ but a great disadvantage, inasmuch as it costs more In stock new burns, while the natural increase of stock has been absorbed by stocking new grass. These disadvantages, owing to war prices, tell especially heavy on the ninety-nine per cent, of settlers who increase their indebtedness to mortgagees and auctioneers for

ovcry new aero of bush felled, grassed, fenced, and stocked. Now wo see by your issue of Tuesday last that: "In defining the liability of (ho taxpayer, the Bill does not make it a condition that to be assessable the excess profits must he duo to the war. The taxpayer is made liable even though the profits hnve nothing to do with tiio war." . . . "Excess profits are. defined by the amount which the assessable income of a taxpayer for the year ended March, 1916, exceeded his standard income." One of the undersigned has a piece of bush to fell thiß year, and the other has some being felled. If we understand this matter rightly, almost half tho gross production of this area when grassed and stocked will be confiscated as "war profits." Will you or some reader through your oolumns inform us if cur reading is correct. Needless 1.0 S6T, if bo, we shall be compelled to leave ! the standing bnsh standing, and tlio foiled bush unburned. Since most settlers on Crown lands break their oountry in on borrowed capital, and the losses of stock on such land is usually, great, this "war profit" business would bankrupt most of them. We think that you would do such men a great service by warning them to fell no more bush, and not to burn what is now felled, if our reading bo correct.— We are, etc., P. W. O'CAVENAGH. W. H. DAVIDSON. Ruatiti, June 10. [Tho position certainly is not as bad as our correspondents appear to think. They will bo protected to the extent of the 'increase in the capital invested in their property on a 6 per cent, basis. It is probable, however, that before the Bill passes on to the Statute' Book amendments will be made in the direction of safeguarding ' the interests of those engagod on new enterprises in process of development. Such safeguards should certainly be provided."]