PROPOSED SUPER-TAX

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIII, 3 August 1929, Page 13

PROPOSED SUPER-TAX

"CANNOT ItII Id:VII;I) JUSTLY

Oi’IXION IN CIIItISTCIIIIUCII (i’-y Telegraph.) (From '‘The Mail’s" Parliamentary reporter.) WELLINGTON. 2nd August. The super-tux proposed in the J'mdget on farm lands of an unimproved value greater than .212,900 is accepted by farming interests as practical evidence of the’ Government's policy ol splitting up the land and settling more people. Probably 75 per cent, of the tanners in the Dominion will lie uiiafi'ecled by llm super-lax. It cannot, however, he levied just 1V "" llll! remainder, since the unimproved value ol many larms on pool country is almiisl as great as the capital value, and since many farms, nominally nf a high value, are heavily mortgaged. "1 can only say I view the Government’s decision with grave apprehension," said Mr W. 11. Nicholson, secretary of the Canterbury Shecpowners Union. “It will merely add to the existing injustice of the land tax. | Air Nicholson emphasised that tanners whose land exceeded £12,500 in unimproved value, were not. necessarily rich. He piloted the ease of a. property valued at £43.000 on which the mortgage was £27,000. The imposition of a super tax in such a case as ’this would simply mean financial ruin lor the owner. Any farmers with valuable properties heavily mortgaged would he similarly treated. A representative of another prominent farming organisation agreed that in theory the super tax was sound enough, hut pointed out that some differentiation must be made in its imposition. Perhaps the majority of farm lands, he said, were oil poor country and practically incapable of improvement. That was to say, their unimproved value was little less than their capital value. On the owners of such land and on the owners of hyid heavily mortgaged the super tax would fall very severely, lie agreed that the bulk of the farmers in New Zealand would he unaffected, but thought that in the ease of the others, the super tax would do more harm than good.

The decision of the Government to enforce paymefit of income tax when income tax exceeded land tax was, he thought,yu perfectly fair move. "No one bices taxation, and we hoped for some economies this time," commented Mr T. G. Russell, a well-known solicitor, "but the Government must balance the Budget. Revenue must he obtained somewhere, and I think, considering the position, the Prime Minister lias done till he can.” It was part of the policy of the Government to get more revenue from the larger estates to encourage farmers to take advantage of the market and sell those estates to encourage. smaller holdings, and so ultimately to put more men on the land. The ex emption under- an unimproved value of £12,500 would exclude the large proportion of iho farmers in the Dominion.,