THE FORTUNATE FARMER.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXVIII, Issue 6, 6 September 1915, Page 8

THE FORTUNATE FARMER.

AN INTERESTING COMPARISON. A return showing the actual amounts oi tax (land and paid by persons in business, as compared with the amounts payable by persons using land ot the same unimproved values lor farming purposes, under tho existing rates of taxation, was placed before tho House by the Minister* for Finance (the Right Hon. Sir Joseph Ward) yesterday. The return gave figures for town properties and country properties of similar value, some typical illustrations being as follows: Business property of £12,071 unimproved value, total valuation £541 id (income tax £528 18s 4d, land tax £l2 13s 9d)i farm property same value, total taxation (land tax) £l2 ids yd. j Business property of £53,604 unimI proved value, total taxation £3374 os 8d (income tax £2828 Is 4d, land tax £546 4s 4d); farm property same value, total taxation (land tax) £625 17s 9d. Business property of £108,441 unimproved value, total taxation £3OBO 10s 6d (income tax £1386 9s 4d, land tax £1694 10s 2d) j farm property same value, total taxation (laud tax) £2041. On seventeen cases quoted, tho total taxation paid by the business men was £23,695 13s lOd, and by the farmers £SBOI 9s 2d, the unimproved value of the laud used being the same under each heading. Sir Joseph Ward said that some people had asked why the increase in the graduated land tax should apply to country land and not to town land. The figures that he had placed before the House showed that the amount paid in land tax and income tax by people in the towns was tremendously Heavy in comparison with the taxes on country lands of equal value. He wanted the House to remember that the purpose of the graduated land tax had been to burst up large estates and so promote settlement. The increase in the graduated tax proposed in tho Budget was applied specially to country lands, because it was impossible to burst up town lands, and lalso because an extra burden on town lands would defeat an object that the Government and Parliament had in view, namely, the reduction of the cost of living. He would show later that the proposals of the Government with regard to the additional taxation imposed on farmers were ?ery I moderate indeed. It was a fact that only two members of tho House would have to pay the land an 3 income tax as proposed in the Budget. Many farI mers would not have to make the new (returns at all. The position was sim(ply that the Dominion had to obtain additional income from some source, and it was futile for people to take exception to necessary steps. He had i ' his own responsibility as Minister for Finance, and ho knew where it began and where it ended. He was not going to be put into a false position i by anybody, and he had no hesitation in saying plainly that the Government must raise the required amount of money and have a chance of occupy- , ing a secure financial positioil twelve months hence. Every section of the community must realise that a cer-

tain duty had to be performed. If

the issues of town versus country, or of big landowner versus small landowner, were going to be raised in this connection, then it was a most regrettable thing. The proposals of the Budget were not laid down on any party lines. They were intended simply to provide necessary revenue in order that the country may pay its way in a time of extraordinary difficulty. Ho was laying the return on the table in order that members might understand the bearing of the portion of the Financial Statement relating to the extra graduated tax, which was intended to provide revenue. The extra tax was to apply only to country . lands, because the Government could not apply it to town lands without bringing about a tremendous amount of unfairness.