WELLINGTON NOTES

Hokitika Guardian, 21 March 1924, Page 1

WELLINGTON NOTES

THE BURDEN OF TAXATION

THE PRIME MINISTER AND '' “JUSTICE.” (Special to “Guardian”.) j WELLINGTON, March 19 The controversy between the Prime Minister and “Justice” over the burden of taxation is advanced another stage in the “Pest” of last evening Mr Massey essaying to demolish the argu- ' meats of his anonymous critic. He begins by emphasising the sanctity of the j promise made to the farmers when the income tax was added to their burdens during the war. “A definite promise was given to the farmers when the tax was imposed,” ho says, “that it would ’ be abolished when the war came to an end, and we had the opportunity of l removing many of tlie hardships that ' were at that time being imposed on the people throughout the country, but which in the circumstances they had accepted willingly. To break that proI iniso would be to do something neither proper nor honourable, and that, in my opinion, would have been the effect lia.l Parliament not been given the opportunity of putting the matter right. The promise that was made by the Government on behalf of Parliament was honoured, and I think there arc very few people in New Zealand who " will sav that the right thing was not' done.” Here the Prime Minister is on sound ground, but of course tlie promise of eight years ago did not exempt th farmers from income tax for all time. A DESERVING CASE. From the Government’s promise Mr I Massev turns to the case of the farmer with 750 acres of high-class land whom “Justice” thought extremely fortunate in having to pay only £504 in land tax. “Somewhere between thirty and forty . years ago,” he explains, “Ibis farmer went into business as a country settler, practically without capital. Ho and his family have been working bard ever since that time. They have very greatly improved the holding which the head of the Family acquired. By energy and industry they have been able to make millions of blades of grass grow whei'o none grew before. I am nol able to say whether they are clear of mortgages and encumbrances. but T do say that they have been particularly good settlors.” When the war broke out, it seems, two of the sons of the family went to the front and after doing their “hit” they returned as war-scarred veterans to join their father in working the farm. “The use of tactics which misrepresent the position of men who have built up this country to what it is to-day,” Mr Massey protests, “should not be descended to, even by a writer behind a nom-cle-plume.” Here it is only fair to observe that “Justice” was in utter ignorance of the identity of the farm concerned. CLASS AGAINST CLASS. The Prime .Minister writes with warmth of “Justice’s” .suggestion that lie had done nothing for the small farmers. “Justice,” lie says, ‘‘is not above using the old dodge ot setting class against class by endeavouring to show the smaller settlers that more is being done for those with larger holdings; but the fact is that when the Government got to the length of being able to propose reductions in taxation the first- move that was made and agreed to by Parliament was in tlie interests of tlie smaller settlers, and especially the men with mortgages. A.s the law stood when the war came to an end. mortgages were exempted from land tax only up to CI ,-“00. I asked Parliament to alter the law. providing that there should be a full exemption up to mortgages of C 1,000, and beyond that there should bo a gradual decrease on a sliding scalp up to £B,OOO, . when the exemption ceased. This exemption applied to more than 10,000 , settlers, and cost €200,000 per annum. That was a proof that my sympathies and those of the Government were with the smaller men, and it is the ease now.” Probably “Justice” will have something further to say on this sub- | icet. 1 “UNMITIGATED HUMBUG,” I Mr Massey does not hold a high opinion of “Justice’s” method of urging the cause of the workers. “Justice” is evidently out to make as much trouble as possible between the different classes in the community.” he 11 complains. “He talks about the poor- ” est Labourer struggling with a large family, while the rich squatter goes " free. This is unmitigated humbug, and this appears under the heading of lhe £20,000 Wool Cheque which was recived. as he says, by a leaseholder, and of which lie says, ‘such large eredils are not passed through without !l notice.’ Notice where, and by whom ? ‘ But the man of whom lie speaks is a leaseholder. If he leases from a European, the latter pays land tax, if from 1‘ a Maori the tenant pays land lax on sc behalf of the owner, and deducts the amount from the rent. Then if ho pays neither land tax nor income tax, the n ‘ shoepfanner “Justice” refers to must ” he a tenant of Crown lands, and Crown j.’ lands are not now let in blocks of sufficient size to produce £'20.000 worth j of wool, or anything like it.” The *" Prime Minister claims that there is no other part of the world in which the ‘ working man is so lightly taxed as he *' is in .New Zealand. It is now “Juslice’s” turn. '