The Manawatu Herald. Thursday, April 1, 1915. PROPOSED WAR TAX.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVII, Issue 1381, 1 April 1915, Page 2

The Manawatu Herald. Thursday, April 1, 1915. PROPOSED WAR TAX.

Thk Auckland Herald, lu an article dealiug with the proposed taxation, urges that there is a strong case for a substantial contribution to the cost of the war by the great agricultural producers of the Dominion. The Herald points cut that “in 1914 only 14,277 people in New Zealand paid laud tax. The revenue to the Government was ,£554.271 in income tax, ,4506,407 in ordinary laud tax. Thus, the average yield per income tax payer is considerably more than double the average yield per laud tax payer. This could be justified %vere it according lo means, but it cannot be shown, because the landowners’ means are not ascertained, and are not subject to taxation. In the absence ot precise statistical information, it is not possible to arrive at an exact balance of equity between the two classes of taxpayers, but the figures suggest that the heavier burden is now cast upon the income tax payer. This inequality would be aggravated by an increased income tax for war purposes even if accompanied by an increased land tax.” Our contemporary explains that the war has detrimentally affected the income of manulacturers while the farmers have enjoyed considerably increased incomes. The position will be more generally Understood when it is clearly giasped that the farmers, even the large farmers, do not pay income tax. Among the exemptions from income tax are 11 all incomes derived or received by or on behalf of any owner of land in respect of the rent thereof,” While the farmer is thus exempt from income tax, the big industrial concerns enjoys no exemption from land tax. It would, there fore, seem that on the basis of payment according to means, the proposal to increase the land and income tax is not likely to meet the case as it presents itself in New Zealand. An increased income lax has been found suitable to the conditions of Great Britian, because many industrial enterprises there, like the sheep farmers of New Zealand, are profiting by the war. Further, it is generally overlooked when the British procedure is quoted that accompanying the additional income tax was a special provision lor relief in cases where incomes had been diminished by the war. In New Zealand we have to anticipate that the year will show a general reduction in taxable incomes. The imposition of a super tax on incomes already curtailed by the war could not be justified by any Government professing to distribute taxation equally and equitably. On the other band, no hardship is likely to he inflicted on the farmers by an export lax levied on a selected list of the main products which have been enhanced in value by the war demand. It may be argued that existing values for produce will not continue, while the export tax may be recurrent. But this can hardly be a reason for placing the present burden on the few who are otherwise feeling the pinch of war and allowing many to whom it has brought an increase of wealth to escape comparatively free. If the export tax in future years is found to be inequitable or to impose restrictions on trade, it can be repealed.”