Taxation of Wealthy Farmers Applauded

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 737, 9 August 1929, Page 10

Taxation of Wealthy Farmers Applauded

DEBATE ON BUDGET

MAKING WOOL KINGS Pay

(THE SVXS Parliamentary R PARLIAMENT BLDG., Thursdav Criticism and defence of < h Government’s taxation proposal formed the basis of this evenino'* speeches on the Budget. -r* Minister of Public Works, the Han* E. A. Ransom, explained the tax ing of wealthy land holders.

Mr. Ransom said his experience 0 the class of farmer to whom the - creased taxation would apply ' that annually-, or almost annually j,' paid a visit to the Old Country w spend his surplus wealth and nearievery two years bought a high-priced motor-car. The member for 'Wellin ton Suburbs had stated the Pri®. Minister would never be able to duce money at 42 per cent., hut v Ransom said he would like to feel s' assured that be would retain Cabin” rank for 10 years as he was of of, Prime Minister obtaining cheap mon°in the future.

Mr. Ransom described the propose new tax on land as a "wool kin*” tax,” because, he said, the aTerasheep farmer would not be allec’F and the dairy farmers to whom ■ would apply would be very few said the cost to the country of „Ti pensions and the war debt amoun,--to over £5.000,000 a year, and tot over six years these wealthy- I,lm owners had escaped paying th»share.

The decrease in the maximum amount of mortgage exemption would it had been stated, seriously affect the poorer farmer. He explained that under the old system a farmer *;>j, property of an unimproved value oi £5,000 and a mortgage of £t.v„, (with a mortgage exemption of £4,000), would pay tax amounting to £3 19s 3d. and under the new st*. tern his position would be the sam» A farmer with a property of an unimproved value of £IO.OOO and » mortgage of £9.000 would, under th? old system (receiving £9.000 excretion! still pay only £3 ig s 2d, thunder the new system his taxat on in every form would amount to £;; Ts lid. Considering that the capita! value of such a farm was probah!£20,000 he did not think that amount was excessive. MORTGAGE EXEMPTION'S EFFECT A farmer with a property of an unimproved value of £12.000 (tlia; was. one just coming under the £12.500 exemption from income tax and a mortgage of £II,OOO. would have received exemption for £6,000 and would have paid tax of £29 13s ■9d. while under the new scheme, with no exemption at all. he would haw to pay £73 12s 6d. Even then he would probably be more comfortably off than the farmer with propervalued just above the £12.500 mark. It had been ascertained that of S 0.00" farmers of the Dominion only 2,200 would be affected by the new mor gage exemption proposals. Sir George Hunter (Waipawa! said he had heard from several landowners. who said that if the legislation indicated in the Budget were to come into force it would be impossible for them to continue occupation of their land. Mr. H. G. R. Mason (Auckland Suburbs! criticised the increased primage duty, and said the estimated amount which the Prime Minister had stated he expected to gain from this source was based on calculations for part of the year only, and it there fore gave the burden a lighter appear ance than the people would actually have to bear. Dealing with the pro posal of the Minister of Education to ‘ give education an “agricultural bias Mr. Masou said he favoured encouraging agriculture iu all forms, but he hoped it was not going to be forced on to children. Air. C. V. Macmillan (Tauranga) expressed the opiniou that increased j taxation was unnecessary, and would ; create a nervous state, resulting in still more capital being locked up. It was the duty of whatever party held the Treasury benches to see that the j country was well and economically j governed. He suggested the United Party should “put its pride in its i pocket and refer its railway proposals to a select committee -of the House for a thorough investigation.” MR. JENKINS’S VIEWS Mr. H. R. Jenkins '(Parnelli defended the Government’s taxation proposals, and stated it was sound polio to employ taxation to provide nionPJ for public works. He would like to see the system again reviewed next year, with the object of reducing the company tax to give the smaller man a chance, and calling on wealthy share holders JLo contribute more to the re cpiirements of the country. He also recommended an increased fee f° r hotel licences. Mr. K. T. Armstrong (Christchurch East) said there was nothing in tfc Budget to indicate that any step' would be taken to improve the lot « the working people, and he contender that the reward of the worker bad no by any means increased at the same rate as production. If war broke ou> tomorrow, there would be plenty <j> j money available in 24 hours, but athough unemployment was, to those i out of work at any rate, as serious a ; matter as war, we could not obtain ■ money to provide work for atwas the Government’s duty to sore ■ this problem, but the present Goveiment had done more to create unem ploymeut than to solve the probleoMr. Armstrong said he agreed tk- \ the policy of taxing large landholder and stated it would only affect farnl -' i , , with substantial property. It inl ’, ; make matters difficult for a fe* j mers carrying heavy mortgages, ® they were farming land on bebalt i bankers, and should reconsider ti ! own economic positions. ** o j Labour Party were in power, it * j tax wealth to a greater degree | was now proposed. He hoped ’ Government would reconsider tiWI | posal to increase the primage !He was not opposed. howeve • higher duties on motor-cars and o , ; luxuries, particularly those c 0 from the United States. c u bMr. R. A. Wright (WellingttWj urbs) claimed that the i ’ ou !j"* a pu railway extension would not be . ing proposition, and said he cou accept the view that the United , had been elected on that ' ssae ' j ta The debate will be continue' morrow.