LAND AND INCOME TAX.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 5 August 1924, Page 8

LAND AND INCOME TAX.

THE HUNTERVILLE MEETING STATEMENT OF THE REAL POSITION. Mr. W. J.. Poison, president of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union, writes as follows, to the Chronicle, concerning a matter of first-rate importance to every member of the farming community : Within the last few days an important meeting of landowners took place at Hunterville, where certain resolutions were passed in support of land taxation as opposed to income taxation. This meeting was attended bv manv well-known farmers, and has attracted considerable attention. I feel it my duty to point out the grievous blunder which I think the meeting has made through want of knowledge of the circumstances and failure to grasp the real position.

May I say that from a personal point of view' land tax would be much better than income tax, in spite of the fact that land tax is payable whether one makes profit or not, while income tax is only payable out of profit. Had I only my own interests to serve I would be a land taxer and nothing else, because the system makes the bad farmer pay as well as the good farmer. But that is not the question at issue. The question is whether we should pay land aud income tax, or income tax only. Let there be no mistake about it, that is the position. If our friends at Hunterville had studied the political situation they would have realised this. •To his everlasting honour Mr. Massey last year, in spite of the strongest pressure that wa s probably ever brought to bear on him in his career, redeemed his pledge and removed the income tax from farming profits. He succeeded in getting that relief through the House in redemption of the Government’s word, by one vote. 5 But Mr. Massey knows that the situation cannot last. Every member of Parliament knows that 90 per cent, of the electors of New Zealand are demanding a universal income tax. The. Hunterville meeting did not realise that while every farmer pays land tax, only a, small percentage pay income tax at all. I have nob the figures by me at the moment, but I am satisfied 80 per cent, of the producers desire the abolition of land; tax, because it hits them every year, while income tax would only hit them in boom years, if at all. The whole of the urban interests are determined that income tax shall be universal. The vast majority of the producers agree .with them. What is the use of sticking our heads in the sand? Income tax is going to be re-imposed. The. Taxation Commission is unanimous about it, Parliament is very nearly unanimous, and the bulk of the people demand it. No Government can withstand the pressure. As a matter of fact I believe that- the Taxation Commission served its purpose in providing the Government with a remedy for a condition of affairs in regard to taxation w'hieh was impossible.

And if income tax is fairly and equitably applied to all sources of income according to the individual’s ability to pay, what could be fairer? Why should any small section of the community escape? A. commission of specialists has declared, after a close and lengthy study of the facts, that it is the only equitable system. Can that dictum be gainsaid? Now' there are many land taxers in the Farmers’ Union who, like myself, would be better suited by the land tax, but- they have had opportunities of knowing the facts and realising the position. The great danger they see ahead of us is the probability of a- reimposition of income tax without relief from land tax. So the Farmers’ Union, with which certain Hunterville speakers were so indignant, w'hile agreeing that income tax if equitably applied was fair enough, concentrated its efforts upon the abolition of the land tax, knowing perfectly well that it could not escape from the former whatever •attitude it adopted, but determined to fight against the dual taxation created by the imposition of both. That there is a grave fear of a return to the dual system a perusal of the Taxation Com. mission’s report will make clear to the dullest understanding. But instead of helping us to fight for relief for them, we have a. meeting of Hunterville farmers solemnlv reaffirming their belief in the land tax and providing their opponents with specious arguments for the continuation of the system—as well as income tax. Would they not be better to admit the difficulty of the position and say, “Well, we can’t have both systems; let us join the Fanners’ Union in its fight to have one abolished at all events.”