GRADUATED LAND TAX

Hokitika Guardian, 29 July 1930, Page 3

GRADUATED LAND TAX

RETENTION DISLIKED. COMMENT BY BUSINESS' MEN. x. The continuance of the graduated land tax was criticised by Mr Norton Francis, President of the Canterbury Chamber of Commerce, in reviewing the Budget on Friday. He explained tlmt it was impossible to comment thoroughly on the Budget, as no time had been available to study it. Mr Francis said that the increase of 10 per cent, income tax was not unexpected, although it would necessarily be unpopular. The Chamber of Commerce welcomed the removal of the super tax on land as it had taken an active part in the protest that warmade, by Canterbury farmers last year, many of whom appealed under the hardship clause and obtained total exemption. “The Chamber of Commerce stands for income tax on all farmers instead of the. graduated land; tax,” added Mr Frandisy • ■ t 'lt ; w'ould appear that, under the Budget proposals, the farmer, who is already paying graduated land tax, if he owns land of an unimproved value of more than £7,500, will also pay.income tax, slum Id his assessment.

exceed the amount which he has already paid nygraduated land tax.” This meant that, in a. season like the present, the sheepfarmer is paying land tax when his expenditure necessarily, exceeds his gross profits in most cases, , whilst in a year when prices permit of a good profit being earned, the farmer has to pay income tax without any rebate for the land tax which he had paid during the years in which he had made no profit. Mr Francis added that the additional taxation on films and amusements appeared to be reasonable from an economical point of view, although it would doubtless he unpopular. ; What the'results of the extra total ishtor tax would be would be debatable because it had to be rememberer! jfjat .the same money was continually passing through the machine on rnceHdurses and if a larger tax were taken bit it, there must necessarily lie less revested. • ■ : “Members of the Chamber of Commerce will he disappointed that more drastic economies in Government departments have not been recommended, because they have, on various occasions, voiced their opinion on excessive State exrenditure.” said Mr Francis. “The Prime Minister has stated that lower production costs arc necessary, with an increase in our production. The extra duties and increased taxation, must surely mean higher, £i,nd not- lower,..production costs, and it would appear to be desirable for the Government to have given the people a,; lead in times when .it is necessary Slot only to reduce. production costs, but the cost of living.,generally.” SAVING'S NEEDED. ‘‘lnstead of £2,000,000 raised by taxation and the saving of a million by reducing expenditure, I would like to see the reverse-—£1,000,000 raised by taxation and £2,000.000 saved by reducing expenditure,”, said Mr C. H. Hewlett when discussing the anticipated- deficit of £3,000,000 in the Consolidated Fund. Mr Hewlett said that he was of the opinion that there seemed to have been very little real saving. “If the unemployment insurance scheme goes through,” he said, “it will mean a big increase in the public service to collect it, and the cost would be enormous. “I would like to see more duty on goods from countries that do not reciprocate with us in the matter of trade —such as motor-cars and other like goods from America. This upsets the balance of trade.” Mi- Hewlett said that lie. would like to see the land tax abolished and income tax imposed in its stead. At the present time the farmer had to pay both, and this was unfair. The fanner’s land was part of his business, and consequently be was bit very bard, in fact more than anyone else.