CLASS LEGISLATION.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2121, 9 January 1880, Page 2

CLASS LEGISLATION.

TOWN EDITION.

Tlic following letter appears in llie “Otago Daily Times” : Sir, —The Property Tax Bill is law, and our tobacco-dealers are becoming acquainted with the practical knowledge that tlit; Ministry possesses of the tobacco business. Every package of tobacco is to bo stamped, and if a dealer has an unstamped package in his possession, he is liable, at the discretion of the Commissioner, to forfeit treble the value of the tobacco, or a TICK) penalty. Of course these provisions are for the encouragement of trade. What some merchants and dealers desired was a change of Oovernment, to get rid of class rule. Behold their aim accomplished ! There are two or three things in the Property Tax Act that should be remembered. I again refer to the manner in which RANKS ARK TAXKH. The Colonial Batiks —the Bank of New Zealand, the National Bank, and the Colonial Bank—are to be assessed on the amount of paid-up and accumulated capital. Now, .as I nave before pointed out, this is unfair. Let me repeat my example. One of these banks bought a piece of bind 20 years ago. it has so increased in value that it is now worth ten times the money paid for it. Yet the bank will pay not on the increased value, but on the value when the purchase was made. Is this fair? A private person also started with a capital, and he holds land purchased at the same time, but he has to pay not on what his capital was, but on what his property is now valued at. But of course class legislation is abhorred by the present Administration. Why, I ask, should a bank not pay as a private individual pays ? Why create any distinction?—unless, indeed, the Ministry desire to secure the co-operation of the banks. Then see how

EOUEKIX CAN ICS A I! K IT! DATED. The amount of their assets and liabilities for the year is to be divided by eight, and on this eighth the tax is to bo paid. AVhy? That I defy any one to answer. It was said that a Chancery decision depended not on any fixed law, but on the length of-the Chancellor's foot. The length of the Treasurer’s big toe would have been as reasonable a ratio as this one-eighth. Assets and liabilities added together and divided by eight. Talk of scientific fiance after that! Still it does not surprise me. Of that which alone can guide the practical man —theory—the Colonial Treasurer is singularly deficient. Then, a great sin that the Grey Ministry committed was in having CEKXAXN EXEMPTIONS. This showed that they were fond of class legislation. But what are the exemptions of the model property tax ? First there is the same five-hundred exemption—and in this I thoroughly concur. If there is no exemption the cost of collecting small amounts is too large. Then—and in this I do not concur —• “all smri’ixG aee exempted.” Again I ask, Why is this? Why should a man who has ton or twenty thousand pounds invested in shipping pay nothing ? Is this not class legislation ? The only parties pleased will be the iN T e\v Zealand Shipping Company and the Union Company and shipowners, and I am informed shareholders of both the companies I have named voted for the exemption. A pure Parliament always supports a pure moral Ministry. But the exemptions do not end hero. All property held by religious bodies is exempt. There is in the Middle Island, excluding sites of churches, more than half a million’s worth of land hold by religious societies, and it is to go free. AVhy ? I can understand church sites being free, but why should a religious body that is a large landowner escape taxation ? I suppose this is another example of the principle which the trea-

surer enunciated, that this was to be an “ ALL-ROUND PROPERTY TAX.”

It is a species of concurrent endowment of healthy churches that, I hope the Voluntaries of this Colony will determinedly oppose. Compare the much abused'land tax with this “ all round property tax.” By it the church lands paid—the tenants paying the tax. But were I to go on pointing out the gross injustice and unfairness of the property tax, I would have to find fault with almost every clause. Let me show its unfairness in regard to

INSURANCE COMPANIES. These companies have to pay on the amount of the premiums received, less cost of re-insurance. Suppose one company gets £75,000 net for premiums, after its re-insurances arc paid. Its cost of management and losses amount to the same amount —and such a thing has happened —it will, however, pay a tax on the £75,000—a sum of £312 10, and this sum must come out of the interest received on the paid-up capital, or be met by the shareholders. Another company gets £50,000 for premiums net, and its cost of management and losses amount to £25,000 only. The latter company will only pay a tax of £2OB Gs Bd. In other words, the company that make a nr o fit of £25,000 pays £2OB Gs Bd, while the company that makes no profit pays the higher sum of £312 10s. Another specimen of the “ absolute ” fairness of the all-round property tax ! I must leave to another letter the new rule with regard to mortgagees and the proposed purchase of the district railways, or as it has been euphoniously designated, “ The District Hailways, Job.” Meantime, I hope, when the notice to assess their property comes round, and which, under the Act, must be done, or heavy penalties incurred, the Dunedin merchants will be able to sympathise with the tobacco dealers, and declare that no more bencficicnt laws were ever proposed or carried by a “ pure moral Ministry than have been enacted in the year 1579 in A'ew Zealand. —I am, &c., IiOBEHT STOUT.