NEW TAXES DEFENDED

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 780, 28 September 1929, Page 6

NEW TAXES DEFENDED

PRIME MINISTER’S SPIRITED REPLY MEETING THE DEFICIT Press Association PARLIAMENT BLDGS., Today. Some heat marked the reply of i Sir Joseph Ward to the debate on the Land and Income Tax Bill. The j Prime Minister was confident of Labour’s support, and did not j mince his words. Mr. Coates was responsible, said Sir Joseph, for an increase in the in-come-tax for 1928-29 that made a 3S per cent, additional charge on incomes of £6OO and a 24 per cent, increase on incomes up to £2,000. Mr. Coates: What are you quoting! from? The Prime Minister: lam giving] you from my mouth what is a fact.! (Reform laughter.) That is what hap-1 pened, yet you are stigmatising what! is in this Bill as class legislation. Sir Joseph Ward said that the landtax since 1914 had increased by only about 20 per cent. He denied that there had been an agitation among the farmers against the Bill. Mr. W. J. Poison (Stratford): You are wrong. The Prime Minister: There has been agitation among a few. One of the leading citizens in Wellington communicated to me the opinion that it would be the finest thing in the world for the United Party if the Reform Party were to keep up its present opposition to the Bill. Sir Joseph said he had listened to the speech delivered by Mr. D, Jones (Mid-Canterbury) on Thursday night, and had come to the conclusion that butter would not melt in his month. (Laughter.) "He is the most spurious speaker I have ever listened to,” declared the Prime Minister. Reform Members: That is not fair The Speaker said he knew there was considerable feeling in the House, but the Interjections were certainly not reasonable. "I will give this final warning,” he added. Sir Joseph Ward said there were not 260 farmers in any electorate or county in New Zealand that would be affected by the higher charges. The cardinal principle of the Bill was to bring in a section of the community that had escaped its fair share of the taxation burden after the war was oyer. The Prime Minister stated he had indicated in the Budget that some means would have to be provided to make up the deficit. He had been asked why 17 years ago he had not followed the same course in regard to taxation. His answer was that there was no shortage in the revenue at that time. There was today, however. The proposals contained in the Budget were sensible and rational. He hoped that at the end of the financial year sufficient recovery would have been made to dispose of the primage duty. It was a temporary tax only. The Prime Minister said part of the intention of the legislation was to induce the large landowners to cut up their properties. If ne were to give way to the Reform Party it would mean that the whole of the provisions would be repealed. The Government was not prepared to do that. The Opposition could not look for any redress from the Government | in that respect. Mr. Lysnar: You are evading the question. The Prime Minister: We do not envy the large landowner; I don’t. I am glad to see him getting on, but he must yield his acres to taxation. Mr. A. Hamilton (Wallace): Why not the big city landowner? r The Prime Minister: The city landowner is not in the same category as the country landowner. To apply the same principle of taxation in each case would be neither just, fair, nor equitable. The second reading of the Bill was then agreed to.