MOTOR TAXATION

Hokitika Guardian, 25 September 1930, Page 7

MOTOR TAXATION

MHO PAYS FOR HIGHWAYS

CASE: FOR, THE FARMER. “Has anyone troubled to analyse the effect of, motor taxation on the landed interests of this Dominion?” writes C. R». Wilson.

Before horse traffic was displaced by the motor-car the farmer was responsible for all, rural roads. He raised loans bn his land and formed adequate roads for' the traffic of that. day.. While he was still paying off these loans came the motorist and wore out and destroyed the road surfaces though he paid no . contribution toward thenrepair. The farmer might have gone on indefinitely acquiescing in this state of thingsihad not the motorist himself started an agitation for extensive road improvement. Then. the farmer woke up to the fact that the advent of the motor had so altered conditions that it was no longer possible for'him to support the burden of roading the country.

It was then that the highway scheme came into existence. " It was supposed to be a measure of relief to the farmer, but was so framed as to be an added burden. Jt provided financial assistance ;for the local bodies on a £1 for £1 basis. That is to say the cost of the main highways (construction) was to he shared equally between the farmer through the county councils and the. motor through the Highways Board.. . This sounds fait and equitable enough,'but when it is taken into consideration 'that the farmer himself is a motorist-owning 50, per cent, of the cars :of . New''Zealand, that he often owns a lorry, and then, even when be does;,.not actually own either car or lorry, he is dependent on and pays the charges of both, it becomes evident that n't. least ; o0 per cent, of the revenue from .motor .taxation comes from the man cih. the {land. Add this to the 50 perjsent. -pays as rates and it will at least 77 per cent, of the . cost- offroad construction falls on him! \ yv . .* ' ' '■} m&tntexaXOE. ‘ . N

The question, complicates the position, ' Tn-the'Original scheme the farmer xvas tbSpav-two-thirds of the maintenance,. y-hut”. this proved' {'unworkable, number of motor vehiclesvmade the upkeep of the roads heavier-and''heavier, each year; so that the. boardfound it necessary to make far ]argpf. ;fe{ontributions toward-main-

... tenance;,thfin• its stipulated third, and jfcp vary.:,,these according ■ to the exigancies counties and 'the- rate ability .of;-.{the districts,through which the roads ;pass. Notwithstanding the increased-grants the upkeep,of the road is provingpan onerous 'charge on the land. Afhoiie time the county coun; usedptp :. consider £3O a mile ', per *annum {a-{(.ufficient sum to allow for road maintenance, but of late some roads have fyost as much as £250 per mile. Therefore as maintenance is to

some extent an unknown quality xve will confine, for the present, the discussion i,o construction xvliich, as I have pointed out xvorks out thus:—

A concrete case: A road costing £2OOO is to bo formed. The farmer, through his local hotly, pays £2OOO. But as 50 per cent, of the Highway Board’s quota has been contributed by the farmer as a motorist it xvill be clear that of the total of £4OOO the farmer pays £3OOO.

, In addition—and tnis is the serious [ point—the Highway Board has been vested, with compulsory powers, and. under pressure from the city motorist is forcing the farmer to make and maintain a standard of road of which lie never would have dreamed; and which as a farmer he does not require, with the result that in the five years the board has been in operation the local bodies have contributed over £2,(100,000 toward the highways alone. To find this they have had to starve the subsiduary roads. THE NEW PETROL TAX. The new petrol tax was imposed ostensibly for the benefit of these subsiduory roads, but the Government could not resist a- few pickings. It has relieved the Consolidated Fund from it to the tune of some £450,000, and it has further raided the road fund by compelling the Highway Board . to pay interest on moneys which hitherto •had been granted free. These raids will completely wine out the revenue derivable from the tax and leave never a penny for needy roads. But, even if the tax had remained at three petre. per gallon when a small residium might have been left, it would only have perpetuated and accentuated the old evil of. dual taxation. It is not in itself a crushing burden. Eight shillings a thousand miles is the average extra cost of motoring (twelve if it had remained at three-pence), hut such as it is the farmer, pays the greater part of it. Beside, oxvnig half the ears he pays for the benzine that draws all the wool,,'.butter, cheese, manures, wire, fa,mi implements, metal for road contracts and that consumed by the numerous graders. So that 75 per cent, is a. low estimate of the farmer’s share of this tax. Then, if by any chance a small portion ‘of , this, revenue should come to the local bodies it will by no means be as a free gift. It Avon Id be doled out as subsidies on rates already -raised. These rates, plus the farmer’s share of the benzine tax, woxdd have made and maintained the roads handsomely..

I Avonder if the city man can he brought to realise the crying injustice of,all this to the farmers, nearly all of {whom.u are just struggling settlers, fighting with an ever increasing load o.f • debt ? It is a class taxation xvith a vengeance and falls on a class which has, this year lost in wool alone more than-the motorist’" xvhole taxation has amounted to in, the last five years. Yet the motorist talks and really seems to think that he makes a substantial contribution toxvard the , roads he xvears out.

. One foolish' statement that has come from the cities is that the value of a man’s land is enhanced by the Highway Board’s expenditure. Quite the opposite. It is distinctly prejudicial

to the farmer to he dependent on a highxvay, because of the ever increasing difficulty of . driving stock to railway and market ,and also because stock so driven-—especially fat stock—deteriorates considerably In value. This is becoming so- great a handicap that many farmers are now motortrucking their fat lambs. Incredible as it may seem, the motor associations have actually made application to the county councils asking them to provide stock route so that the motorist may cjoy the undisturbed use of the roads—the roads, be it remem bored, that the farmer lias made and to Hp’-ove xvliich he is saddling himself xvith an almost intolerable burden. EFFECT ON SETTLEMENT. Everyone xvlio lias thought of the situation agrees that in extensive land settlement lies the only hope of this country, and I submit that in this reading problem xve find one of'tbe chief factors that prevents men from going on the land, f can piont out to settlers of. twenty-five years’ stand- j in" xvho have no road to their holdings because they cannot afford to raise the requisite loans. Still these men are forced to contribute toxvard I the main highxyax-s. In these circumstances it is foolish for the Government to talk alr'iit encouraging land settlement or “giving an agricultural bias to education.” Jt does not take a great deal of education to see that the firs" burden a man xvho takes tip k’nd has to shoulder is the construction and maintenance of roads for the motorist.

What the farmer asks is that he should.be relieved of the cost of at leas L the highways. Jn England the whole responsibility of all roads has been taken from the farmer. But the highways, at any rate, should be constructed and maintained entirely from funds provided by motor taxation. Only so can xve arrive at* anything like an equitable tax. Only so can xve make even approximately ‘the user pay.’ The. farmer xvill still be paying liis quota as a motorist and he has still to attend to his 32.000 miles of secondary roads xvliich the motorist is at liberty to use free.