House of Representatives.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXII, Issue 8930, 21 September 1907, Page 3

House of Representatives.

Press Association ■\Vklwngton, September 20. The House met at 2.30. Two days leave of absence was granted to Mr Field through urgen t public business. Cue week’s leave of Absence was granted to Mr Bollard on urgent private business. The Methylated Spirits Bill was reported, and the amendments made in Oummitee wore argeed to. The Bill was read a third time and passed. The House thou went into Committee on the Laud and Income Assessment Bill.

At the interpretation clause— Mr Massey objected to a tax '.being made on mortgage by the borrower, whilst the lender .at the same time paid a tax on the interest derived from the same mortgage. The Premier stated that a graduated tax was not paid twice over. No reduction was made to tiro borrower on his mortgage, but the lender did not pay the graduated laud .tax on the mortgage. Ho added that this clause did not alter the existing law. Mr James Alien urged that the mortgage tax should be done away with altogether. Ho added, “Makeit an income tax if you like. ” By wiping .out the mortgage tax it would cheapen money. The Premier said the Bill was (lesigned to assist in the cutting up of largo estates, and the tax pro - posed was witli that object. Ho one wanted to see individuals suffer. All they wanted to see was that the large estates wore cut up. Mr Fisher urged that a law should bo passed that when a land-owner died iris property, if over £IO,OOO unimproved value, should bo parcelled out. If this were done, the a in 25 year;;’ time there would be no estates in excess of this value. The clause was agreed to without amendment.

The House adjourned at 5.30.

The House resumed at 7.30. Clause ’a, which provides that sections 4-1 and 45 of the principal Act, section 5 of the Laud and Income Assessment JAct Amendment Act, 1903, and the schedule to the last-mentioned Act, being repealed, (Vas agreed to without amendment. v Clause 4, which provides that •jvefy person who owus land tire unimproved value of which is £3OOO or (gore shall pay a graduated land tax, commencing with the year ’ending March 31st, 1908, was agreed to Without amendment. At clause (5, sub-section 3, for every additional thousand pounds of rho said value over the amount of £40,000, the percentage shall be increased one-fifth of 'a shilling, and the percentage so increased phnll he ehargud qu the J total nnimpedyed, value of the land in respect winch the Sjhl ijs assessedMv Vvilford moved an amendment to omit the clause with a view to inserting the following : “For higher value there shall bo a progressive increase of r’orcc.utr.ge, the rate ‘for -yvtny. value’ ‘ being ■ onh-flftli ’of a shilling more than that "for a, value pf one thousand poupds icssi” Ho urged that undo? the. clause proposed m'fhq' Bill no provision made as to’ wl’fit should he Imposed jin amounts 'between thousands pyor £40,000.

d'hq fdueudmeut was negatived by 50 to 0. Mr Laurouson said tie desired to move tliat progress be reported for cbrtain'reasous. As a private member' it was impossible for him to riiove 1 that the be reduced, but. by reporting progress it v ,ould enable 'the Government to firing down by Governor's message proposals to reduce the exemption from £40,009 ‘to £20,000. He bad gbocl reasons for the course he proposed to adopt-. There were 30 es-, fetes between ■ £20,000 and £40,000. If the exemption were reduced the increased revenue thereby derived would bo £5272, whilst it would also increase the revenue from estates over £40,000. IT is estimation of the extra revenue was probably irotn £IO,OOO to’£l3,ooo, but he particularly desired to emphasise that a junu owning £25,000 of laud held an ample quantity, and the Government should do all that was possible to discourage largo holdings. The Premier said lie ga.e Mr Laurenson every credit for his-desire tq move tor tho reduction of the progress! re' taxation' from £40,000 to £25;000, 'Tint though Mr Laurenson find sgid the increased revenue would be some £SOOO more, lip asgpjvjd members that the Increase would not exceed £4OOO. He reiterated the remarks he made on the second reading of the .Dill, that it was not Uesiraqlo to reduce ilie amount ' below £40,000. He pointed but that there were properties of less than 400 acres with an unimproved value of £25,000, and others with 500 acres unimproved value £30,000, and for the reason lie had given before h,p was not prepares to gcoopt the proposal to reduce the ' item. Ho reminded members that the' increased taxation {iom the graduated land tax would 1)8 £17,000 in excess of the highest amount received during 1904, 1005. and 1903. Incidentally he instanced the case of a farm of 043 acres, the unimproved value of which was £71,000. If the proposal was carried it would place great hardship on uniay owners cf properties valued at £25,000, and would flood the market. Ho added that; it would injure the pplony if the proposal was carried. jlr‘ Rutherford, in opposing the motion to report progress, said that large estates were materially decreasing under existing taxation, and urged there was no necessity _to reduce the amount of exemption below £40,000 oMr -Fisher agreed with Mr Laurenson and proposed to vote for the amendment, because he knew it would bo defeated; hut if lie believed that carrying the amendment would lead to conliscarion ho would not support it. Ho would like to gee the Bill designed to prevent largo estates being brought into existence, but ho did not want to come (iowu on a private individual and y»y that- by the imposition of this fax we’ro going to practically confiscate his excess laud. ' Mr Wilford said the revenue derived from Customs last year was £3,941,000, and from land tax £447,000. The total value of unimproved freehold laud of the colony was £1,233,347, and that, lie urged, was sufficient justification for Mr Lauronsou’s amendment. Ho was sorry that the hou. member did not propose to make the exemption £20,000. instead of £25.000, -■ Mr Till contended thorn were many parados "hold by one man which would provide livings for six or seven families, and others of enormous values within easy distan-e of towns which w< nidi of great value tor mark it g mloaing purpose*. Ho would sr.pTiort the amendment. He addcl that the time would come when they would have to reduce the exemption far Lolo',y £25,000. ’■ Tho Premier said there wore 123,000 landowners in the colony, and 20.000 odd "paid, land rax. The values ox rasable laud was £7T,000.000 last year, and the mortgages amounted to £49,000,000. If comparisons wore to bo introduces between tho Customs revenue and tuo land tax they would have to go a iitfclo further' arid ’see how much hoeplo owning the laud paid in Customs revenue. Mr Laurenson, replying to the Premier, said that if the exemption was reduced to £25,000 the increased revenue, lie found, ’ would be £100,927, not £5372, as had been stated previously. Tho motion to report progress was negatived by 49 to 13. The division list was as follows Ayes.—Arnold, Barber, Ell, Hogg, Fisher, Hawaii, Iwxm, ’Laurenson, Poland, Poole, Stallworthy, and Wilford. Noes.—Aithen, E. G. Allen,_ das. Allen, Bennett, Colvin, Dillon, Duncan, Faltmau, Fowlds, A. L. D. Fraser, W. Fraser. Graham, Gray, Grecnslade, Hall, ferries, Hornsby, Hcutson, yonmugs, Kidd, Lang, ipawryi’ Lewis, Lethbridge, Major, McGowan, McNub, Macphorsou, Malcolm, Mauder, Massey, Millar, Okey, Mills, Ngata, Parata, Reid, Remiutgon, Ross, Rutherford, Seddon, Steward, Stevens, Rypioii, Tanner, Thomson, YVant, IVUty,

Wood. Mr Ell said there were two estates lu Wellington of the value of £303,288, and eleven estates valued at £578; 140. There were two sec. tlons-ono of 170 ft. byT37ft., valued at £18,72.1, f\nd oats tlotfc by Jett , valued at £16,€25. These,_ ho said, represented the unearned increment, and those wore cases for a progressive land tax, but because they Were business sites they were ox. onipfc. Xu Christchurch an acre of land was valued at £62,080. Another section of 1% acres was valued at £110,425, Er the latter case, in early dates, the quarter aero was sold for £24. Four years ago tins same section was valued at £47,500.

These were business sites which had been created by the community, and they should contribute more towards the taxation of the country. The Premier said the Bill was for the purpose, of catting up estates, and could not apply to business sections, as they could not bo cut up for the purpose of the Bill, which was intended for cutting up land for settlement purposes. Mr Homes said that suppose ho Ito Id 10 acres in the city of Wellington, ho would draw rents from tlie ■ whole portions of the estate, and yet would not pay the graduated tax under tho’Bill. He urged that these large city estates should be cut up for the purpose of workers’* homes, etc. The Bill would encourage men to invest money in city property, and forsake : the country. He urged that if a man hold city property he should be exempted in so far as his own premises were concerned, and not in regard to his tenants. Mr Gray pointed out that where handovers paid £3 10s per year in taxes the man owning land in’towns | would probably pay £2250 in taxes, j Mr Massey said the arguments of j the city represetatives was to the | effect they should tax the laud to j prevent monopoly in the country, but should they allow a monopoly in the towns to go untaxed? Ho urged that there should bo no differentiation between land iu the cities and land iu the country. This was an extreme tax which was intended to apply to the country, but not to the towns, and ho was altogether opposed to differentiation. Ho contended that in proportion to tiro value derived, the local taxes in the [country wore iu excess of the local taxes in tire towns.

At Clause 7, sub-section I—.“ Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained, each of the said percentages determined as aforesaid shall bo increased by 25 per cent thereof iu the case of all laud other than business promises, as bov-yie. defined”— Mr EH move to strike out all tlio words after >*• land, ’ ’

The Premier pointed out that the effect of the amendment would be increased taxation. The Chairman ruled the amendment out of order. Discussion was proceeding when, the Telegraph Office closed at 13.41 a.m. In the Council the Tariff Bill was put through its final stages and passed.’