Untitled

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIV, Issue 5835, 11 December 1879, Page 2

It was very interesting to hear hon. members last evening, when the House of Representatives was in committee on the Property Tax Bill, accuse each other of harboring fallacies on the question as to whether machinery was to be taxed or not. Those members who were for the taxing had at least an idea of the principle involved, but not so those who spoke in opposition. Mr. Swanson argued that there were persons with a few pounds who had combined together, and had even mortgaged their houses and land, to start their business. Surely these persons, if working as a company, would only be taxed on their capital, or machinery, if exceeding £SOO in value ; and although they would be liable to taxation as individuals, and also as shareholders in a company, still, unless they possessed property to the tune of over £SOO, they would escape individual taxation altogether. Mr. Swanson also contended that the money made in New Zealand had been made in land. If by

land he means land speculation, then doubtless some money has been made in that way, but if he refers to the farmer, surely traders and manufacturers, as a class, make very much larger profits, and accumulate wealth more quickly, and to a larger amount, than fa-mers. Mr. Swanson himself is a proof of the fact. A gentleman in Christchurch was referred to as offering an example of a case in which a tax on machinery would work prejudicially. It was stated that that gentleman had begun as a blacksmith, and was now the employer of some one hundred men and the proprietor of extensive and expensive machinery. Surely such a case proves that the manufacturer can bear to have his capital taxed as well, or even better than, the farmer. Where did Mr. Anderson get his wealth from 1 From trade. The machinery which he has acquired represents his profits, invested in that way in order to obtain larger profits. Mr. Saunders contended that it was tc the interest of the farmers to give protection to the manufacturers. But it is also to the interest of the producers and exporters of raw material to get their machinery, to render it marketable, as cheaply as possible. If the home manufacturer cannot give as good value for money as the foreign one, then it is certainly to the interest of the producer of raw material to buy in the cheapest market. It was said that such a course would drive away our mechanics. If they are unwilling or unable to compete with outsiders, having the protection of freight and large revenue duties, while the farmer has to contend against the world and bear freightage and other expenses of exportation, and if they cannot turn their hands to anything else, it may be better that they should seek more profitable employment elsewhere. There are numbers of good mechanics farming the land already, and many of them are not doing so well; they would return to their trades, if there were openings for them. Although taxation, however imposed, will press hardly here and there, yet it would never do to exempt the machinery of our flourishing breweries, furniture factories, sawmills, boot and shoe factories, foundries, and engineering establishments, tanneries, &c. Much was said about the flax industry, but too much money and valuable time has already been wasted in it. There is only a limited sale for manufactured flax goods. The fact is that as that material is at present prepared there is a defect in the fibre, which makes the rope speedily rot when exposed to the elements. All the machinery required for the manufacture of flax rope, <fec., in New Zealand will not bring much money to the revenue, nor will a property tax which exempts all properties up to £SOO in value prove any greater hardship to those who manufacture than to those who produce the food of the country.