LAND AND INCOME TAX PROPOSALS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 60, 19 September 1907, Page 2

LAND AND INCOME TAX PROPOSALS.

THE DEBATE COMMENCED. PROVISIONS OUTLINED BY THE PREMIER. Per Press Association. Wellington, Last Nig'iit.

The Premier, in moving the second reading of tile Assessment Bill, reminded members that since 1801 persistent efforts h (J been made to settle people i on the land rather than allow the lands to be held in Inrgo estates. From time time to time, legislation jiad b,een introduced to bring about this desirable objo/jt, but notwithstanding theso efforts, it htifl lieen found necessary to submit three new Bills. The Government was not submitting these proposals' with a desire to increase the revenue, or to be hostile to the holders o£ large estates. The graduate land tax had in the past probably been too light for the purpose of closer settlemejnt, especially when tho prosperity of tiro country was considered. In 1901, there were 7,840,000 acres, valued at £17,-< . 457,000, aril with unimproved value of £12,200,000. In 1002, there were 210 owners of 7,800,000 acres, of the capital value of £13,000,000. In 1900, owners had decreased to 200, with a totstll urea ■ of 4,/00,000 acres. "The capital value ', had decreased to £12,250,000, and the total unimproved value to £9,278,000. At the present time,' there were 38 less owners, who owned an area of 3,700,000 acres of lnmil, of a capital value of £3,200,000 less than in 1001. He pointed out that the purchase of large estate by the, Government and cutting up by big private owners had reduced largo estates. Referring to the graduated! laiH tax, lie said between 5000 and--40,000 the B-tme rate as at present wa's proposed in the new Bill, and continuing from that onwards from 8s irl £IOO until the maximum reached at'

£200,000, with land tax at £2 per; £IOO. The loss to the revenue from the subdivision of large estates ranged from £l5O lis • lid in 1805-915 T.j £10,052 17s 2)1 in 1905-0, with a total for the whole, period of £28,180 7s lid. Kef erring to the fixing of progressive tax at £40,000, he pointed out thaty ndcr these proposals there was aji in> crea.se of taxation in round figures ol\ £OO,OOO. if they came down to the; institution of the tax at £'20,000, the total additional revenue would be/ £4OOO. He added that there were pro-' perties in the country of less area/ than 100,000 (sic) acres worth more than £40,000. There were properties with, an area of less than 400 acres worth, worth £20,000, and areas of 000 acres worth £(10,000. He contended that men in the latter cases should not be under the graduated and tax. In 1892 the total absentee tax was £OSB, and last year the amount from this souroe was £4237. In 1802, the graduated land tax was £70,889, which increased, in 1903-4 to £98,002. He contended.

that under the tax large holders would find it undesirable to continue. There were under the Bill proposals which had never been submited to a Parliament! of this colony Continuing, he saiidi this existing law regarding partnerships' was ineffective, as by giving nominal' shares of his land to members of hi:} family a man could reduce his graduated land tax by one-half, and the\ proposals under this Bill would prevent any possibility of these practices being

followed in the future Private companies at present were used for the purpose of escaping the graduated land tax, but these would also be checkmated if the legislation in this Bill were carried, as it would prevent any person holding land, fronf gaining benefit by forming a portion of his estate into a limited company. The Bill would also prevent evasion of the graduaed land tax by subsidiary companies. The Bill would also prevent evasion of the tax by estates held in trust. The Government was carrying out a laud purchase systcfm in tho face of very high values, that had ruled in late years He urged that large landholders should realise that it was in the interests of the country and of themselves that they should endeavor to get rid of the excess of estates. Dealing with flax ilanjj, hej said it was proposed to deal with that under the law as it was at present,

AiUoaey cUilLCiiUed LUul me nguios suomitled by Uie Premier siiuuud mat »uu- uivid.ou was sic.iuuy going on, aim mat lucre w..s no necessity lor tne' jjiil. He added that tne Uiit meant increased taxation, tie agreed that it was desirable to settle the country,, but urged that the first thing to i-ei done sliouljd be to settle the Crown lands, and if it were desired to cut up the lauds of private owners, it shouJ be provided by legislation to cut up holdings at the death of an owner ifa holder held an excess of land. *Hci agreed that the Public Accounts Committee had improved the Bill, and congratulated the committee on having' struck out the last clause of the Bill,' which was in effect a clause to cause* one person to spy upon another. He; argued that the tax on standing timber was iniquitous, and tended to the .destruction of our forests. He was pleased to see the tax on standing timber as originally proposed had been re'duced by one half, jbut he contended' that there should be no tax on standing timber. His principle objection to the graduated land tax was because, it, did not discriminate between the' man who had a mortgage on his lano| and the one who had not. He contended that the number of people paying graduated land tax was steadily increasing because valuators put up the value of the'land. He cSntcndriil that

men running a farm or station jointly; were entitled to exemption up to £3OO,

but under this Bill they were not entitled to any exemption. TTo asserted that this Bill was driving people out of the colony, aUid men were looking for laird in Fiji and Queensland. He contended that if we were going to have a graduated tax on lai\d, then we should have a graduated tax on income. ft' might lie said we had a tax oil incomes, but it was nothing in comparison to the graduated land tax: which was paid by the man who did flie right thing by the country, by putting his money in land and developing jtho resources of the country. ITc contended that there were more holdings of 10.000 acres and under at the. present time than there were ten or twelve' years ago. Tie quoted a talile of 'fig': ures to show that the number of large.' estates had boon considerably reducctl) since 1802, and the number of smaller:

holdings increase. He added that 100 acres, as a rule, was too small for a farmer to get a living on;- consequently- 1 such a farmer was continually en th'c* look out to add to his holding. He urged in conclusion that the large lam'd owners on whom the graduated laml tax chiefly fell should he allowed *™ or three ways in which to get rV c" their surplus lands. Cr Laurenson comhattej the Pre-!

inier's statement that if land values, were taxed from £20,000 instead of £40,000, it would only realise some £4OOO, He contradicted Mr Massey's statement that people were leaving (ho colony owing to taxation, and asserted that within five years the taxation in England would be as a giant in comparison with New Zealand's taxation.. He contended that the people were uofonly going to demand political equably, but economic' equality, and added lb' the graduated land tax was a step in the direction of preventing the amas!|ng of wealth, anj that was a step in the right direction, and the rising dem ocraey would demand that wealth should ho taxed. Mr. James Allen contended that Mr. Laurenson spoke as a city man, and that the Bill to a large extent was a city Bill. Ho argued that statistics showed that since 1883 the.number of large estates had steadily decreased. The Hon. Mr. McNab said he believed that if Mr. Massey was in a position that he had to place measures on the Statute-book he would endeavour to place measures that would be in the direction of breaking up large estates. He contended that the cutting up of large estates that had taken place was due to the Advances to Settlers Act. At midnight Mr Thomsoon moved an adjournment.—Negatived on the voices.