PETROL TAX.

Hokitika Guardian, 18 January 1924, Page 1

PETROL TAX.

HON' J. 0. COATES’S ADVOCACY AUCKLAND, lan. IT

I ;im not .-.peaking for tin: Gov eminent v. lion I advocate tux on jk-I - 111 1 : llTnt is ]mrolv my personal opi!)ini. As a matter of fait, tin* Motor Vehicles Kill proposes no such tiling, in-toad, ii provides for a tint tux on motor-cars.” Such was the reply of file Minister of Public Works, tlie lion J. (!. Coates. when asked to dismiss the criticism by the (Hugo Motor < * 11 1> and Canterbury Automobile .Vssociation of his suggestion made on tV'oral occasions during his North A tic )i<l tour that a petrol tax would ho tint most equitable manner in which to itialto the user pay |V>r l oad a ; n ten-

A-Iccii \vl ’ll I partii ulnr :u Iva ■! Vigos no thought Mould aeerue Irom a patrol tax, the .Minister said: “fn the first plaee it. Mould l>o a direct tax. as 1 would impose it. A oti .always nit the greatest net return front direet taxation. Ineoine-tax is a ease in point. It costs less to enlleet than ■ u<tireft taxation. The tyre tax is a >. it so in point. The trader takes his profit on the cost of the tyre to him, plus duty, tints, while the Government is trot.this Cl oil,ooo out of the tyre tax, the motorist is paying another CoO.OdO to COO,OOO a year in the extra profit the trader takes lutsed on cost plus duty. The precise (inures T have not he side me, hut they can lie obtained. However, the point is clear. The motorist is paying ‘2O to 40 per cent more tl an ever reaches the Main Highways Fund, that is why it is economically unsound in raise the tyre tax, fay, from 2d .to SO per cent to obtain maintenance funds.

•‘The flat tax is. not an ideal method of making the user pay for the roads. Take the. case of the North Auckland farmer, whose ear is immobilised during file winter months as against that of the farmer in Taranaki on bitumenisod roads throughout the year. That brings us to the petrol tax.’ Personally 1 think it is <he most equitable way of making Hie user ] ay. My opinion is supported by the experience of one of the most progressive States in America, Caliiornia, which has dropped nil other taxes on motors and adopted the petrol tax. Asked flow he would get over the expensive niotlmd of indirect taxation. Air Coates replied: “The consumer pays for hi> petrol as lie buys it—it is an additional charge, just as is the amusement tax; the trader will have put ou his profit before Lite tax is .... bled. If t lie petrol is to be used for launches or milking machines or lionvehicular purposes, then a certificate of exemption must bo produced by the purchaser. 'Evasions should lie easily provided against. 1 believe the opposition to the petrol tax comes chiefly from the motor trade. L utter the system 1 have outlined, the trader would not get his share of the tax. The net return to the Highways Maintenance Fund would he high, much higher than if the tyre tax were doubled and the trader still took his profit of cost, plus a doubled tax. The user of the roads, l believe. is prepared to pay for their construction and maintenance. He must be careful that he is not tugged at the heels of Lite trader. •■The Main Highways Act gives us C1.'50.000 with which to pay interest on loans for capital expenditure on roads. We want another £l*»0.000 annuallv, for maintenance, so that our capital may not all he dissipated in a few vears. The petrol tax, as I have -unvested, would be the cheapest and most equitable way of making the user pay but these are my own individual opinions, not the official policy as I enunciated in the Afotor A eludes Hill.