THE BURDEN OF TAXATION.

Hokitika Guardian, 30 May 1922, Page 1

THE BURDEN OF TAXATION.

(To the Editor). Sir.—ln his speech at Keilding, the Prime Minister, while deploring the necessity for M very hetivy income tax in New Zealand, offered the hearers of the burden the somewhat cold comfort of an assurance that if they were living in Australia they would be paying at a still higher rate. This was not necessarily correct. Much would depend upon the State they selected for their place of residence, and Mr Massey consigned them all to Queensland, which did not'quite lit iii with his contention. There are two income taxes levied in Australia, one by the Commonwealth and one by the State, and they vary in amount. - The tax- (Commonwealth and Stall' combined) is lowest in Victoria and hi'diest in 'Western Australia and the charges in these States upon taxable incomes derived from personal exertion may he compared- with the charges in New Zealand upon the same basis at a nercentage rate:

It will he seen that the New Zealand rates are suhstantialy higher than the Victorian rates, and - that in the higher graduations they approximate not very distantly to the West Australian rates. Another comparison, including all the Australian States, may he made by taking tbe totals of the amounts pa.id on the six incomes employed by Mr Massey in bis illustration. Placing New Zealand and tbe Australian States in tbe order of merit, as tbe taxpayers would regard them. Victoria comes first with •C 4.032 and is followed by South Australia C 0.798. New South Wales £O.OOI. Queensland £0.582. New . and Western Australia £7.522. Tile figures do not place the Dominion in an\*' very enviable light, and look at them ns I will T cannot see how they are to lie made to bear out Air Massey's contention in its entirety. Tn the matter of company taxation the figures are all against New Zealand. Taking again tbe Ftates of A ic-to.ri-i and Westoin Australia for comparison with New Zealand, we have the following results:—V. T \V \ns N.Z.

The totals of company tax payments on the six- incomes, compared as in tbe io- l a nee of individual incomes, show Victoria with the lowest payment CW.t !), followed b.v Sooth Australia Coins, Queensland £5552. New South Wahs £5552. Western Australia £0372

am! New Zealand COS 22. Th<' signin' ant-e of these figures scarcely Is emphasising. They show first of all. that the ( onsidered opinion of the five Australian States is diametrically opposed In the unjust and arbitrary syst-ill of taxation enforced ill thisfountrv with the object of relieving the taxing department of some of the

trouble of assessment and collection am with the result of gravely crippling in ilu>try :»nc! roitunorff*.

Tlu’v nlsn explain why the Australian companies are so much hotter able during the present crisis to help the producer and to give good service ta tile public at large than are the New /ea-ln-nl'companies. The company heie that makes a profit of 5 per cent, -upon a capital of £2oo.(Til) is at once polluted 'open by the tax-gatherer and compelled to hand over one half of its rear's ermines. In Victoria, includin'.’ loth Coin monwi all h and State taxation. its payment would he only CISIU and in Quensland. rtflen piloted as the rapacious Staff of the Comonweallh in this respect, it would he lott with three-fourths of its si fluty earnings, available fo,- distribution among its shareholders or for any other purpose it might determine upon. Of (nurse all his has been said befere. Iml the time seems opportune fol' its reiteration, and Mr Massey has provided me with nil excuse for trespassing upon the hospitality of your correspondence columns.

T am. etc.. TAXI’A Visit

Income Vic. VC. Ans. x.z. £ I’. •r cent. Vet* cent. I’d- cent. 500 5.1 0.0 5.8 1.000 ‘ 7.2 8.3 s!i •2.(Vlli 10.7 13.S 12.0 3.000 13.3 10.3 17.7 5.000 18.3 30.5 27.S 10.000 30.2 50.2 43.1

v Income Vic. W. Aus. N.Z. £ Per cent. Per cent. Per cent. :.on 1.8.3 15.8 5.8 1.000 18.8 10.8 8.1 2.000 18.8 10.7 1 l.o a.ron 18.8 23.fi 17.7 .-..(KVI 18.8 28.1 27.8 10.000 18.8 80.8 ■13.1