WELLINGTON NOTES.

Hokitika Guardian, 19 March 1924, Page 1

WELLINGTON NOTES.

TAXATION. TOWN AND COUNTRY. (Special to “Guardian”.) WELLINGTON, March 17 The controversy between the Prime Minister and “Justice” over the incidence and distribution of taxation which is going on in several of the metropolitan newspapers has attracted much interested attention here. Though “Justice” prefers to hide liis identity under a noin de plume it is recognised that he is thoroughly conversant with the subjects he is discussing and in this respect every hit as well equipped as is his doughty antagonist. He invited Mr Massey to enter the lists hy bluntly declaring that the Government hy lightening the burdens of tho big land-holders and prosperous farmers at the expense of the workers was creating the very class prejudice and the very resentment between town and country it professed to deplore. “A sound system of taxation,” he said, “should not take into consideration whether the payer lives in the town or the country. All arc citizens of the same Dominion, enjoying the same benefits and privileges, and should be liable for the same proportion of their incomes in taxation, no matter what occupation they follow, the spot they live in, or the source from which their income is earned.” That these ideal conditions ilo not exist under the present system of taxation he demonstrated beyond alt reasonable doubt. He showed, among a score of instances, how a mercantile company consisting of 1,000 small shareholders with an income of CIO,OOO per annum paiil Cl,ooo in land tax and £2,032 in income tax, a total of £3,932. while a large landowner, typical of a number of others, earning CIO,OOO per annum paid only £I,OOO per annum in land tax and not a penny of income tax. His remedy for flagrant injustices of this kind, in smaller or greater degree, was the adoption ol a system of taxation that would demand from every person an amount in accordance with his ability to pay.

THE PRIME MINISTER’S RETORT. Mr Massey’s retort was a little disappointing to his friends. It seemed to he directed rather against “Justice" himself than against the facts he addued and the thocries he propounded. “Though it contains many figures,” he said hy way of preface to his denunciation of the indictment of the present system of taxation, “there arc very few facts. It- is evidently intended to assist: in encouraging the- difficulty that lias been created between town and country by writers of tlic smile typt*.I'* 1 '* Tlieiv wore nimiy personal thrusts of the same kind throughout the Minister’s reply. “It would do the writer a great deal of good,” it was stated in another place,

“to turn him on to a dairy larm tor twelve months, and compel him to live on his earnings or profits, or whatever they might happen to be. An experience of such as that would convert him in a short time to a better way of thinking, as it has converted many others.” Interpolations of this sort do. not, of course, help towards the solution of any ol the problems involved in this controversy. Mr Massey, however, was not without illustrations in support of his own point oi

< ir-w. “Just one instance, occurs to me," lie said, “of the case of a gentleman with whom I am well acquainted. Ills holding is something under 750

acres. It is fairly good land and in a fairly good position. His bind tax was paid at tile proper date and 1 have seen the receipt, tor L'-tOf, the amount handed over to the Laud lax Department. The local taxation of the property referred to is very little short of Cl per acre. And this is only one instance out ol thousands in New Zealand, and it is on the industry and enterprise of such people that the writer of the article and others, who think as be does, are probably living in ease and comfort. 1 ’I hat case and a statement by the late President Harding to the effect that it nation which neglects to assist the larmer.s would precipitate industrial and commercial disaster appear to have been the Prime Minister’s strong cards. UNCONVINCED. On Saturday ■'Justice," unconvinced and undismayed, returned to the charge He opened by protesting against Mr Massey's assertion that such “stuff” as bis statements of fact and bis demand olr equality of sacrifice “might 1)0 expected from a Socialist representative in Parliament” and were “just the sort of thing that, coming from representatives of the commercial Community, will in the not lar distant future place a Socialist Government on the Treasury Benches.” He ignored the personal note in the Prime Minister’s retort, but refused to rest under the imputation of being in sympathy with militant Socialism. “If such things did happen,” he asked, “who would he responsible? Those who are responsible for this unfair system of taxation and remissions which are antagonising thousands of people, or lie who draws attention to it that it may be remedied before it is too late? The strongest sense in the British people is justice. Instinctively they will take the side of the weak against the strong and resent favours to the rich denied the poor. If a Socialist Government comes into power in Xcw Zealand it will he not because the people of the Dominion lore Socialism, but because they resent injustice. There exists no greater recruiting force for Socialism than tlics who advocate and provide the means by which the rich may unload their just burdens on to the poor. All the Hollands and the Frasers multiplied a hundredfold would not obtain one half the recruits to Socialism than those who deny justice to the masses do.” Having relieved himself of this fervid passage “Justice” returned to the sober consideration of the facts as they appeared to him. lie evidently had had access to all the documentary evidence available, had studied it carefully and had reached very confident conclusions. BIG FARMERS AND SMALL. The burden of “Justice’s” personal . complaint against -Mr Massey is that while the Prime Minister has antagonised the workers in the cities by heaping favours upon the big land-owners he has persistently striven to make it appear that his concern is solely for the small farmer struggling under a load of debt and a high rate of interest, harassed and over-worked, denied all the comforts of city life and not knowing when a bad season may throw him ou the cold charity of an indifferent world. During last session of Parliament. he says, the Prime -Minister put a Bill through for the special benefit of “struggling farmers” exempting all income derived from land from income tax. This “Justice ’ maintains, proved a gift- to the rich landholders and of no value at all to the

“struggling farmers” and being challenged by the Prime Minister ho produces the facts. The official figures show that six land-owners with incomes averaging £10,916 apiece were, relieved of taxation averaging £3,5503 apiece; six with incomes averaging £7,526 apiece of £2,152 apiece; fortyrelieved of taxation averaging £3,503 apiece of £570 apiece; fifty-five with incomes averaging £3,500 apiece of £452 apiece and so on down to 2,567 with incomes averaging £456 apiece of £0 apiece. The total number of landowners who received relief of any kind was 4,602 while the total number who received no relief at all was approximately 80,000. These figures are computed on the returns for 1921-22, the slump year, and authorities have assured ‘‘Justice” that the remission will be twice as much this year, or well on to half a million. The critic disposes of the sad case of Mr Massey’s friend with a farm of 750 acres on which he pays 0504 ill land tax with laconic precision. “The Prime Minister,” he says, “mentioned almost in tears, a poor farmer who paid £504 in land tax. That gentleman evidently lias 750 acres of our choicest land, valued, as I work it out, at approximately £54 per acre unimproved value and of a capital value of anything around £55.000.” It certainly does not seem a case for any special commiseration. But the next word remains with tho Prime Minister.