South Canterbury Times. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23,1893.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 7076, 23 February 1893, Page 2

South Canterbury Times. THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 23,1893.

Wb publish to-day an article from the Wellington Post on “ Inequalities in Taxation,” which points out some of the defects of the new Income Tax. It ia admitted that no tax can be devised which shall be absolutely fair ; but that is no reason for being content to retain unfairnesses that can be removed. The Post says the exemption of incomes under £3OO a year ia made u on the principle that an income sufficient to supply the necessaries of life should be allowed to every man free of taxation.” That was the idea of the Legislature no doubt. But what an idea of the necessaries of life'ia indicated by an exemption of £3OO a year ! The Post thinks that is “ probably a very liberal, if not an excessive, estimate of the cost of living.” Our contemporary might have written more decidedly. It is not the Post's opinion, however, but the Legislature’s that is in question, .rand that is indicated to be, that £3OO a year is necessary to provide the necessaries of life. Quite a small proportion then of the people of New Zealand have incomes enough to procure the necessaries of life. This we know ia not the fact. The fixing of the exemption at so high a figure, on the principle stated, illustrates the assertion of St, James' Gazette, mentioned in a cablegram, that payment of members in Victoria has utterly failed to secure representation ef the masses. On the point above treated of, the same assertion applies to New Zealand. Our Legislature represents, on the average, people with incomes of, on the average, £3OO a year. The remarks of the Post on the ineqity of taxing men with families at the same rate as men without, on equal incomes, are also very the point. “ Exemption should be allowed for every person dependent upon the taxpayer for support.” There can be no denying the fairness of this, and if the same principle were applied in the land tax, it would remove the one good argument against it. If an exemption were made for every soul permanently employed upon an estate, no one could point to the injustice of taxing a cultivating owner of a large estate—like Mr John Grigg, for instance —at the same rate as a non-cultivating owner. The article we refer to has also soma pertinent and josb remarks on the taxation of investments in luxuries, some of which might not unjustly be penalised as withdrawing capital for ever from useful applications.