The Taihape Daily Times. AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE. THURSDAY, JULY 31, 1919. TAXATION AND PROFIT-MAKING.

Taihape Daily Times, 31 July 1919, Page 4

The Taihape Daily Times. AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE.

THURSDAY, JULY 31, 1919. TAXATION AND PROFIT-MAKING.

With which is incorporated “The Taihape Post: and Wziimarino News.”

. As the time for a general election, and the selection ofanew Government draw l near it is customary for newspapers to ‘ publish ratlier copious opinions from various sources on the subject Of i taxation It is rather remarkable that every person who pays taxes, J'lldging from what is publicly stated and urged, thinks the incidence that lsqueezes so much out of him is wicked and altogether unjust. From time [to time we reprint in these columns some of the opinions expressed, because -they help men in the chief industry in this. district ‘to watch the trend of What is-happening, and what i may happen to their. disadvantage Men in every branch of industry, '1 trade, manufacture and finance that ‘,make suflicieiit profits to control a ‘newspaper, or rep:-esentative journal of any kind, are using their respeci tive publications in educating the ‘public into seeing and believing how hardly and unjustly the incidence of taxation presses upon them, and they lsay it is impossible for such condiJtions to continue. It seems that while ‘business and finance are in the forelfront of the vocations that would have ‘their taxation reduced, farmers are ; doing next to nothing, and the masses lot the people are doing nothing at all, iperhaps because they have no journal to speak through. A telegram from L Wellington, we published in yesterday’s issue, indicates that some rc- ' markable earnings have had to be admitted by salaried persons; by traders and by professional men, but these hugc earnings do not extend to the 'much maligned farming community, [that fact is notable. While men on the land are the "victims of a rather ldrastic dual imposition, those in I business, trade and professions put up {the records of the country in profit‘carning, alld, strange th'ough'it‘ma,v seem it is those very huge incomeearners who are howling most against ‘the income tax, saying such high rates fuannot be maintained. If their contenitions are just upon whom shall the ‘burden fall which they seek to cast* loft‘, To put it upon the legitimatcl tfarmer would be nothing short of all‘ [outrage; holders of huge estates; which it is impossible for them to ‘work to a condition of profitearningl that all lands should be forced into, { ]are in another category, alld riotliirigi [can be said against a progressive tax! ithat will prevent men from grabbing! ]more than they can handle. The legal llmlding of farm land should be deterimined by value and not by area, f,r ‘keeping land from settlement and inlrcnsive production keeps its value down, and hence we have men owning '1fU,9,0 areas paying next to no tax, inhale land cultivated to its legit2'm:itc ‘extreme is taxed very heavily, nayirg both land and income taxes. La-sr ycar, in New Zealand, two men w‘“r.-2 paid salaries averaging I'ou,r:-hly £9OOO each_ It will be interesting to kncvx I what firm, -assuming it is not the‘ Government, could afford to pay such I salaries and who the men are that can earn them because we do not believe there is anything big enough in this country yet to permit such salaries being earned, and we would not like] to think that anything from a strictly I ethical course in salary. paying was Ohera-ting in New Zealand, whatever may be happening in America, the land Of big and outrageous things. The I high cost of living cannot trouble the 111011 Who lift a salary each and every ‘ ‘“"n"h Of £663; roughly £26 per day 1 for every working day £1 per hour d“Y and flight. And yet there is a criv’ ‘ ‘ against taxing salaries. Then there, isone professional man with an i.l- i come of £17,590, roughly £1466 per flj month of not taxable income: overll £56 a day earned, it is hoped, by a ; professional man in this young strugrt 4 Sling country. It is assumed that this 4 professional abortion in money-get ting is a doctor or lawyer, well, some 1 ' some I

i“costing,” but we cannot believe either have Come to such degradation in at country that is only comparable with ‘the back garden to some other coun'tries. There is only _ one profession, Ewe. think, can produce such a ma 'avis, and that is newspaper-owning, gor to be more polite, journalism. In [fact we shall be surprised if there are inot other men in the journalistic, or ‘newspaper-owning, profession, making profits very close up to the one me.l- - indeed, a trifle more information. about the earnings of men in pr :- ciscly_ similar vocations would have proved particularly interesting, but that would Possibly have disclosed iwhat the newsmonger has sought to hide. How do farmers with their double taxation feel about the professional men who earn profits amounting to £56 per day‘? The ‘round of the clock, day and night, £2 10/ an -hour. The crowning story in Dl‘ofif-making is, however, about 9. man who does not live in New Zealaud and yet takes net taxable profits out of this little land totalling £37,313 in one year. You farmers keep asking and wondering who gets the profits on your produce over and above the price you receive and that paid by the masses who consume it. Well, here ‘s “ one of the men who is scooping a big" {levy on your production, and he doesn’t even live in the country wherefrom he gets such profits. It is particularly notable that ‘one man alone makes £37,313 in one year in trading; .What does he make it out of, and how {many more are there making very nearly as much out of what this country produces, or out of the rags and finer},/we. are so madly paying ridiculous prices for? This absentee trading iuterloper takes profits out of this country's trade amounting to £3,109 every month of the twelve, and £ll9 10/ every working day of the week, and yet we are craftily set to anathematising large land-holders and farmers generally for making huge ‘profits while -controlling production. Ewell may farmers ask the trading community and the Government what they are doing about bursting up, I robbing institnt_i.oil’s, it hontrolling . profits of traders makin»g;£t3.7,’3=l'3.a_year, [without even living in the country. t'l‘ruly may £armers_.urge,_t‘hat. the more la.lld'—bursting,is pra_ctic.ed the more twill it lay this land‘ open ._to the operations of forei_gners, as ‘Well as those lwho live in New Zealand, to go on increasing their e3zploita_.t'io‘n of farmling efforts. We know just what far(mers get and we know the work and anxiety involved in ‘getting it, but {what is the work done -to improve the country ’s production_"by the exploiters, the parasites onyour industry who do not even reside inthe Dominion? z Truly may an answer bcsoixght to this question. New Zealand is not obliged to permit the methods‘, of seizing upon production, and lnlpQVel'lShlllCnt or the masses that are przietieerl in other countries.‘ There is an outcry for making farmers ‘pay inoi'e taxation. but while present system of‘ taxcollecting is‘ currentf law farmers are paying a fair quota, lf:I10t more than is fair considering their outlay and the uncertainty of seasons. While We justly, humanely Call out for more settlement and the ‘break-up of big", ‘landholdings, we are the Jackals oil -the wily customer who now niakesi I £37,313, but who urges ‘us on ‘to more production because ‘it would enable thim to very materially exceed tliat ‘sum. The legitimate trader is harm‘less, he cannot be done without, but trusts alld combines should be taxed] out of business before farmers a-.-cl" asked to contribute another shilling} Will the statistic fiend be good enough] to enlighten us upon what the highest return of profits is made by an‘; farmer? We have the trader making £37,313; the professional man earning £17,590, and salaried men with their £BOOO a year; are farmers notl entitled to ask whether the incidence of taxation does not require to be} revised, and made to more justly 70130 in the trading vulture that has sWOOD-i ed down upon their products‘?