THE BUTTER-FAT LEVY

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3092, 24 May 1917, Page 8

THE BUTTER-FAT LEVY

\ - SAKIfERS PROTEST-AGAINST IT AS '. -./■■;- v> . UNFAIR, '...•• ; ■ 1 , ". , . .By Telegraph.---Press Association. . . ■■■,"■ Auckland,- May 23. ....■_ 'The", butter-fat.levy gave rise, tea spir- .•'■' y. : ited'discussion at-tue annual conference ■■.:.' " •.. of tho Auckland Farmers' "Onion. Tho : :'.'-.'■", following romit was brought'forward by .' the executive: "That thia'conloronco re- . . . cords : its emphatic, protest against the ;■_.■' . ibutter-fat tax, as being unjust and uncalled for, and a special tax upon, ono of : ,- the bardest-worked sections of tho com- ,-■.•■■ ,"•■/.■/:;."■ .:.jMr...B..D..l)iixfield,..in moving tlio re- / - ■" imjt, said'the-'notionof the Government •■■_■; -in , imposing- the tax infringed the recognised, principle- -that no taxation should be imposed without tho sanction of-.Par- ■■; liarnent. It was a measure intended (o propitiate those organisations that .were organised bettor than the farmors wove. .:. Tho tax made no discrimination between those -who wore well able and thoso who tould ill afford to pay it; neither did it . raako any discrimination between tho poorworking man who consumed only i»"'.. two or three'pounds"of butter a week. ■ and tho wealthy manwho bought two or three-times that quantity. If tho Government had desired to benefit the working man it should paid him ii war . bonus. ■ Captain F. Colbeclc, who seconded the motion, said that the tax -worked out at about 12s. fid. a cow annually. Thus, a ■ ; ; man with twenty-five cows was called -upon to pay £\t> 12s. 6d. in addition to .. all .other taxation. If tho Government desired to benefit tho consumer, it should . havo bought the butter and sold it'at : whatever pfico it considered propor. ]n that case the loss would havo boon shar- '" cd by all sections of tho community. • Mr. Colin M'Donald struck a discord- ;. ant note by referring to tho farmers' , war profits. - He-quoted figures from tho .Year Book, showing tho riso in prices (luring the war, and said if prices durinjr Ml 7 remained as high as they were during the first half of -1916 the farmers of the Dominion lio'uld havo received, at P r ?- war _Jiatos,.a Bunvof nearly ■■.-.•: . «W.. . This was an injustice to tho eol- ■'■■'• te'?.«™ were -' fi e htin «f at the front. ;., • That should havo been dovot- . cd to defraying war expenditure, and not a penny should .havo been used for any •. .-/ other, purpose until tho ,war bill had been : • 1 , ™:.. - 1 "ducers of-moat and wool were making much more.\v M profits than the . dairy, farmers. ■•-..• Miv_ JV Boddie admitted that to dis- ; 'cuss the matter further was liko thrashing a dead.horso, but an important prin- .:, ciple -was involved. The tax was an unwarrantable, infnngomont of their.liberties and a gross injustice to a hardclass. The matter was not vet fi » ls, , l «<J with';, it would bo fonstht out • •Sγ' ll^,,? 11 tho floor of Parliament. Jilr. Thomas Allen said that Wore the ■-.• ar ef "i,.CMcago was £3 per 1001b H a 7 ?. , Tho Pnces of beef and niut- ' : W,,, +1 ' eil - "P for seme Tears before the war, and had there, been no

war tho price of beef in New Zealand today would havo beeu as great as tho prosent rates. Anothor delegato said that manures wero now costing a great deal more than they cost before the war. ■ Mr. M'Donald said that tho Year •Book showed that during .1915 less was paid for manures, tools/ami implements than in 1914. • , Mr. Diixfiehl said that extra shipping, insurance-, and. other, charges had'gone up in proportion to tho rise- in produce-. the remit was carried unanimously.