TAXATION

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 10 September 1924, Page 5

TAXATION

IMPORTANT CONCESSIONS

BILL READ A SECOND TIME

LESS LAND AND INCOME TAX

(BY TELEGRAPH —PRESS ASSOCIATION. ) WELLINGTON, Sept. 9. the second reading of the Land and Income Tax (annual) Bill was moved !vr iir H ° us ?, to-night by the Premier (Mr W. F. Massey). Speaking to the motion, the Premier said there were only two clauses in tne Bill—onp reducing land and the otner income tax as previously announced,. viz., the land tax by 10 per cent and the income tax by 13 1-3 per Qi im,.P° inted °«t that on March Zl’l.lt’ was paid in land tax £/6/,451, but by March 31 this year the ai £? un t had increased to £1,426,- * ;as * n . 1914 amounted to £554,2<1, but this year there was levied and paid £3,781,531, which ga\e members an exceedingly interesting comparison. The Taxation. Commission had recommended that it was essential, in the interests of the Dothat the weight of taxation should be reduced as speedily as pos-: sible and he agreed with that extremely concise statement of the position “We have already made a start m the reduction of taxation,” proMr Massey. “We may-, not have done much,. but what has been accomplished has been very serviceable and the Government’s proposals for- a. further reduction this year have been well received- all oyer the country, the; ouly complaint being that the reductions were not big enough.” Evervcountry in the world where -it was possible, to do so had been reducing taxa™n) he was-prepared to go further than he was doing now so soon as it was possible to do sc. Later oh h© would be willing to go into the whole question of company taxation, but the 1 axation Commission did not consider, it wise to attempt much at one©; We could not increase, but we. must decease taxation if we were going - to avoid a depression. The reduction of, taxation had a wide influence, and he quoted as a case in point the agreement recently made with the' bugar Refining Company, who agreed to a concession in the price of sugar as as they knew that taxation would be reduced. , If we were going to reduce the cost of living taxation must com© down. The reductions wouldalso provide more employment,' as was proved by the fact that we had next to no unemployment this winter. We could not expect to'.get back to- normal yet awhile ; we might never get backto the rate of taxation paid in 1913, but we could only do our best byi pursuing a policy of economy. The Premier intimated that if; the second reading was agreed to he would refer the Bill to the Public Accounts Committee!. The leader of the Opposition (Mr T. M. Wilford) said that with a good deal of what the Premier .had said he agreed, but he disagreed with him in this—that his remarks applied to the people on the lower rung of, taxation,; but had no application to. the men, who were drawing huge salaries and incomes . Quite recently a return was laid on the table of the House which showed that 10,080 persons 'in this country owned land worth from £20,000 to, £60,000, and as the Premier hadl promised to supply the House with all possible information before theßill passed the committee stage he would ask him to state: (1) What was lost. to., the Treasury by the recent remission of income tax on land; (2) what was lost to the Treasury by the- remission of income tax on incomes , over £500; and (3) the loss to the Treasury by the remission of land tax to the owners ofi land of £IO,OOO and over in value. -His. party stood for the land tax, and, would not sanction its abolition. . Mr Massey: That has not been suggested. . . . ' Mr Wilford said the Taxation Commission recommended it, and he. believed that while the Premier, wbuldnot propose its abolition all at once; he. believed he would, if the opportunity, offered so whittle it down that it would practically disappear: For this the Liberal Party would not stand. - The land tax was a staple form of. revenue, and there must always be such a tax. Mr Wilford therefore wished to make it plain that his party-would not, sanction a reduction of the . income ; tax on big incomes. or a reduction ofi the land tax on high land values. There should be a reduction of taxation for the small man, but not for; the; big man, and if the Premier insisted on a reduction of 10 per cent on land and 13 1-3 per cent on the incomes of, everybody, then they must oppose him. If he was willing to make a reasonable graduation they were willing to confer with him to arrive at what was a reasonable, graduation. : An emphatic denial that the Government had any intention of abolishing the land tax was given by the Hon. C. J. Parr. What the Government was seteking to do was to abolish double' taxation. .Until recently' a farmer paid income tax as well as land tax. Thiswas unjust, and the • Government considered that when a farmer paid- land tax he had done bis fair share.

The leader of the Labour Party (Mr. H. E. Holland) said the Labour Party would oppose the reduction in 'taxation. proposed in the Bill, because the country could not forego the revepue until many social requirements, such as increased pensions, etc., had been met and public servants’ salaries bad been restored to their 'pre-Avar purchasing power. The Labour Party opposed the reductions in the Bill because the; small. man was going to get no appreciable benefit. He moved as an amendment that in the opinion of the House there shall be no reduction in direct ‘ taxation.

The amendment was seconded by Mr F. Langstone (Waimarino). A division on Mr Holland’s amendment resulted in it being defeated bv. 42 votes to 16.

After the Premier had replied, during which he denied any intention to abolish the land tax, the Bill was read a second time and referred to the Public Accounts Committee. ;