FARMERS PROTEST

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2834, 27 July 1916, Page 8

FARMERS PROTEST

'CARRYING- AN. UNFAIR SHARE

THE "WAR PROFITS" CRY

. ■. W-ar taxation'was discussed by the DoBiinion. Conference, of the New Zealand Earraeis'-Union yesterday. ' ... ~ , -■Mr. H. Dr- Vavasour (Marlborough) moved:—"That, conference protests 'against, land-owners being singled out-to pay the-greater part of'the, war taxation, .the. present, war 'taxation ■'■.■being' tantaBiount to. a class" tax, and this conference oonsiders any taxation for war purposes should be an equitable one, and should bear equally on all classes of the coni■munity." Mr. Vavasour said the farmI «fs did not object to even ■more than : their share of taxation, but the Gov- \ '-.''ernment should make some attempt at ; ■'-'-~; equity. There had been a. good deal of .■„■■.-':. nonsense talked about "tho huge profits" '.''." ,'the farmers were making. Take wheat! ... Whatever profits might have been made, these were nullified by the importation "• of Wheat from Canada, with a result that ;':■-; instead'of wheat being at the normally fair pric.e of 55., it came .'down- to 4s. 6d. Then there was the talk of war profits out of meat. v He considered that .-■ ;'■-.. -tBo appointment of Sir' Thomas Bobert- ': wn and Sir Montague Nelson- on the Meat Committee at Home were highly improper. He ."quoted''.a ■ journal which ■-■ eaid that. Sir Thomas Eobertson was ...'■'■■ ■' closely connected with an American meat -'.'trust.- He knew.that firms in England ■' ' were making largo profits out of meat-' irhibh the - British Government did. not -/' . use,'and those profits were being reaped '.; chiefly'by tho Chicago-Smithfield meat - ring. Ho contended that the meat should v. 'have been allowed to go 1 Home "by tho :, ordinary channels, and there comman- ! deored, if necessary, by the Imperial .Government.. ' The present- system had , : . been -a.bungle from end to end. He -would : not mind if the profits were going to tho 'Home Government instead of to speculators. ■ The Government of "this country -'were piling up taxation onf the fanners at'an undue rate, and it was the duty -v - of, the men on the land to' raise their voices against it, and make it h vital ; issue at the. next hustings. ;.'.'■- ..*:. ;"What of Amusements'and Beer?" .! •■Mr.''A. Mackay (Marlborough) second- \ ed" tho'motion. The farmers, he .said, did hot object to paying their fair share of; war taxation, but they objected to be- ■"■■;' lag so overtaxed as'they were. The talk of war profits wag-mythical. There were _ t -farmers of his acquaintance who had " had to. seek/overdrafts. The present , taxation proposals meant that 92,000 of our population would bear the whole of the taxation; it-was a case of "work the willing horse to death." ..„'"Mr. J. M'Queen (Southland) said that - 'in'response to Mr. Massey's appeal they . had sown more wheat than usual; but ■'./. they known what was going to hap-' ;'■"' peii to them they might not have done . ed; He had done so, and - was now in. the position of having to pay excess profits. He.did not relish the position,.and next year would spend a considerable amount on manuring his farm, and tho • excess profits would not be so great. : , • !;Mr. E. Dunn (Taranaki) protested on -behalf of the dairy farmers ngainst'the taxation. -Mr. J. Begg (Otago) 'said he would not '■.'."■ like it to go,forth that they objected to ' taxation, even if it' did 'hit them- hard.' '-■■■■' He took it that the net amount was the ■figure that Was taxable, and not the . ; ,gross amount. . . V "Mr. G. L. Marshall (Marton) moved amendment: "That any. taxation . . for war purposes should be equitable, ..and should bear, equally on all. classes ■'.•' :. of the community." ' .-.";■ Mr. W. J. Birch (Marton) expressed '.the opinion that the farmers had been

singled out for more than a fair share of taxation. The war was a national affair, as much concerning other classes of the. community a's it affected the fanner. Yet what were tho taxations which had been placedX on amusements, or ou beer? Another Side of the Question. Mr. E. Campbell (Wanganui) said that to listen to the speeches oneNmight gain the impression that the farmers were the only people who were going to bo taxed. The merchants were of the opinion that they really were the class who were going to suffer the greatest loss . through tno .system of taxation. He had been credibly informed that tho stock of-one firm in Wellington appreciated .£61,000, and that that firm would have to pay 45 per.cent. of that sum in taxation, and yet would have to replace the stock .at a great difference in price. However, there were three taxes to be. paid by. the farmer— a land tax, an income tax, and now another tax. The income tax was a matter for the honesty of tho farmer, and there were many who had not' paid as much in that Way as they should have. As to the new fax, there would be difficulty over the filling in of the complicated taxation forms.

Mr. A. A. Ross (Auckland) declared that there had not been' s-ucient evidence produced before the conference to show that the farmers were to be called on to pay more than a fair !share. • Mr. Vavasour said the apathy of the farmer when his own interests were concerned was proverbial. Any resolution that did not contain a,strong protest would be a milk-and-water affair. The Amendment of Mr. Marshall was dofeated by 13 votes' to 12, and the motion of Mr. Vavasour was carried. : Against an Embargo. Mr. James Begg (Otago) moved: "That the conference protest. against any embargo on the export of produce, or imposition of export duties." Mr. Begg said that he knew of nothing which would more lead to decreased production than an export tax. Mr. D. Jonas (North Canterbury) seconded the motion. , Mr. Vavasour said it was perfectly marvellous that anyone should advocate an export lax. Mr. Jones: Especially the chairman of the Bank of Now Zealand. Mr..Vavasour:'Yes, Mr. Harold Beauchamp. And yet at last, year's meeting of the bank Mr. Beauchamp said he hoped the Government would make tho war. tax equitable. Then there was Mi'. . Pear.ce, ■ M.P. for Pa tea, who'-might ■be remembered by the farmers in his district when the next election was being fought. Mr. T. Moss (Eketahuna), speaking against embargoes, said it w;<is the greatest mistake a Government-could make to interfere with the channels of trade. It was a boomerang which came back upon them. The conference nad a right to ask that no embargo should be imposed without the farmers being .constlted. (Mr. Begg said an embargo or an export tax would cut at the root of tho prosperity of the Dominion. After spending years and money finding markets, were wo going to undo all;that by, preventing the -people 'supplying those markets? Were we going to stultify ourselves in that way? , , ■The'motion was carried unanimously. Mr. G. Sheat (Dunsandel) moved, and. Mr. Begg seconded, the following, which was carried.-without- opposition:—"T*«;t the Government lie asked to increase the taxation on luxuries and amusements." The Position of Loan Money. \ Mr. Jones moved:."That this conference favours the system of taxing incomes as being the fairest way of reaching war profits from land and all other sources." He said that'it was a'wrong thing for the Government to .'exempt the war loan money from taxation. The position was that there were rich men who were prepuringvto borrow as much as they could from the banks in order to escape taxation. The rich would thus escape much taxation, while the .general ran of the people would pay it. .This motion would be a good • way of conveying a protest Ho the Government. The motion was seconded by Mr. Vavasour, and carried. Mr. A. Mackay (Marlborough) moved: "That the attention of the Government be drawn to the qlause in the Land and 'Income .Tax 'Act relating to allowance for number of children, and that this conference recommends that the,exemption with regard to numbers be deleted so' that there will be no limit as to the number of children under sixteen years of age." Mr. Mackay thought the scale should he a graduated one. Mr. W. A. Cox (Southland) seconded the motion, which was carried without opposition.