Three Independents Oppose New Taxes

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 779, 27 September 1929, Page 7

Three Independents Oppose New Taxes

“IMPOSSIBLE BURDEN” MR. WILKINSON’S VIEWS THE BUS’S Parliamentary Reporter PARLIAMENT BLDGS., Tburs. Two more Independents have revealed their independence and gone against the Government in its taxation proposals. Mr. C. A. Wilkinson, member for Egmont, has joined Mr. W. J. Poison, and advised the Government to drop its proposals and investigate the whole position, claiming that a severe burden would be j placed on the whole farming com- I munity. Mr. H. M. Rushworth j (Bay of Islands) also opposes the Government. Mr. Wilkinson’s affirmation was j made during tlie debate on the second reading of tlie Land and Income Tax Amendment Bill in the House today. One of his objections, said Mr. Wilkinson, was that taxation was to be imposed regardless of the prosperity of the land. In that respect he was in disagreement with the United Party, although he considered the Prime Minister was entitled to congratulation on the concessions he had already made on the original Budget proposals. It was obvious that the proposals could be altered still further. He suggested that he should drop the super-tax proposal, and allow the mortgage exemption to re- j main at the existing figure. IMPOSSIBLE POSITION With land-tax and local-body rates an impossible position would eventually be reached for the men on the land, continued Mr. Wilkinson. Some form of co-ordination with the two sets of taxes was necessary, so that the necessary and desirable adjustments could be made. Information received regarding taxation of wheat areas in the South Island was to the effect that tlie ordinary land-tax on certain good quality wheat farms was 11s au acre, and the super-tax proposed was 10s OJd, a total of £1 Is 2Jd an acre. In one case ordinary land-tax was 7s 43jd and super-tax 12s SJ-d. “Are they large farmers?” asked the Minister of Lands, the Hon. G. W. Forbes. Mr. Wilkinson said that the total unimproved value was £50,000, but even so tlie tax was high and amounted almost to confiscation. The Minister of Justice, the Hon. T. M. Wilford: Are they suitable for subdivision?” “Some of the lands may be,” Mr. Wilkinson replied. The hardship clause of the Bill was at its best of no great value, and he believed that a great number of the farmers affected would not bother about petitioning for a refund under that clause. At present income-tax payers were allowed to deduct interest they paid on thenmortgages, as well as 5 per cent, oi' the capital value, and he wanted to know why, if that principle were accepted in regard to income-tax, it could not also be approved -with respect to land-tax. It seemed unfair to discriminate in that fashion, and the only reason for differentiation was the desire of the Government to see the land cut up. Surely some better means could be devised to obtain lauds for closer settlement. Before the whole farming community was taxed to secure the subdivision of a few estates, lands should be properly classified to enable the most suitable to be selected and dealt with accordingly. REGARDLESS OF PROFIT Land taxation was being imposed regardless of profit or loss, he continued, a flat tax that took no account of the season’s prices a.nd so forth, whereas income-tax was imposed only when profits were made. The amount required for additional revenue could be derived from a general application of the income-tax. Was it worth while to disturb 1,800 farmers to bring in £25,000? It was a case of using a big hammer to crack a very small nut. He asked the Labour Party to assist in the question. When land taxation was before the House the Labour Party rushed in and supported the proposals regardless of the consequences. It would perhaps be a good thing for New Zealand if Labour were placed on the Treasury benches, because it would then become educated to the necessities of the farming community. Mr. M. J. Savage (Auckland West): We don’t need any education on that point. Mr. -W. D. Lysnar (Gisborne); You don’t want it! That is the trouble.

If the Labour Party wanted to get into power, said Mr. Wilkinsons, it should try to conciliate the small farmers. It was unfair to rush in and support the imposition of taxation on farmers simply because the farmers only were concerned. Mr. Savage: That is not what we are trying to do.

Mr. H. G. R. Mason (Auckland Suburbs): This is not the Labour Party’s Bill.

Mr. Wilkinson: No, but the Labour Party is supporting it. The United Party would have no hope of putting the Bill through without the support of the Labour Party. (Hear, hear.) Would the Government suffer any lack of dignity by foregoing- the proposals relating to the super-tax and mortgage exemption? asked Mr. Wilkinson. There was no doubt that on a division the Government could win through in spite of the Opposition. Therefore it was clear that there would be no loss of dignity byabandoning the objectionable provision. If that were done he felt sure Sir Joseph Ward would obtain practically unanimous support for the imposition of income-tax on the farmers. If additional revenue were required one method of obtaining it would be by a reduction of the present five per cent, on capital value allowed business people.

Following Mr. Wilkinson, Mr. D. G. Sullivan (Avon) asked Mr. Wilkinson to quote chapter and verse proving a single instance of the Labour Party proposing increased taxation on farmers.

Mr. Wilkinson: You hare never had a chance to propose It. Mr. Sullivan emphatically denied that the Labour Party had ever rushed in to support increased taxation on the working farmer party. He realised that working farmers were just as much workers as manual workers, or any other class of worker. When the Labour Party fought for the workers it also fought for the working farmer.