The Daily News. TUESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1917. TAXATION PROPOSALS.

Taranaki Daily News, 14 August 1917, Page 4

The Daily News. TUESDAY, AUGUST 14, 1917. TAXATION PROPOSALS.

The debate on the Budget proposals lias, so far, produced considerable criticism and a fair share of diversity of opinions. It is not that there is any outcry against, increased taxation, but the means to be adopted for raising tbe revenue for the year naturally elicit various opinions. It has to be remembered that the times are exceptional, so that ordinary means will not meet the case. Take, for instance, the- tax on tea. New Zealand is especially a large consumer of this beverage, probably far more than is good for the health of the people, so that it can easily be imagined that a tax; on tea would not be welcomed. The only point in its favor h that being a customs duty it is easy to collect, but Ministers 'will have a difficult task to reconcile this impost with their professed desire to reduce the cost of living, and as the tax will touch almost everyone in the Dominion, the poorer portion of the community will certainly feel it most, and the larger the family the greater will be the contribution to the Treasufy. It Is certainly surprising under the cirstaaees, when the masses were eagerly looking for a reduction of household expenditure, that tea should have been ohosen for taxation purposes, being*' made practically the first instead of the last resort. Wo have already alluded to the way in which the wool kings have been favored in regard to taxation, and we only allude to the subject again in order to point out that a tax of oneeighth of a penny per pound on wool would provide all the money the Minister expects to obtain by tea tax, and as wool has increased in price fivepence or sixpence a pound since the war, the fractional tax mentioned would certainly be far less felt tlian the tea tax. In this, as in other matters, the Government takes the line of least resistance. The mass of the community apparently need no consideration, while the wealthy must he "taken up tenderly and treated with care." This is emphasised by the paltry proposals .is to the land taxonly a million and a quarter on an un-' improved value of more than two hundred and forty-one millions. When it is considered that the land products amount to between fifty and sixty millions sterling in value it is at once obvious that a mere million and a quarter is nothing but a dole from this source, anil it must not be forgotten that the tax on war profits has been dropped. The remarkable fact, however, is_ that the new land tax scale, while hitting the smaller estates fairly hard, seema to reduce tho liability of the large landowners. The £oooo estate, 'which was paving eight shillings and tenpcnce per of unimproved value is raised to fourteen shillings, while the tax on the £K3,G;X) estate (the maximum) drops from £4 10s to £4 Ts per £IOO, but it must be remembered that the 25 per cent, super-tax Tdevised to break up large estates) presumably still remains on property of £30,000 and nl- ' though on this point there is no definite data. It has been pointed out that if tho apparent intention to tax mortgaged land as if the taxpayer held the title deeds is the actual intention of the Government, a good deal of hardship is assured. Then there is tho case of a leaseholder who has taken up back country. The unimproved value of his holding is probably a comparatively small quantity, and its use as a basis for assessing his income for taxation, with no allowance made for money that he has borrowed to stock the land, may result in his hiving to pay a much heavier proportionate tax than the owner of a valuable freehold. The exemption from the income in the one ease will be relatively small and in the other relatively large. It Would seem that those members of Par- | liamcnt who represent the less favored portion of the community- will have to Carefully watch the Financo Bill, so as (io obtain something approaching an equality of sacrifice-by placing the burden of taxation on the shoulders of those best able to bear it. At present the small landholders are being expect i ed to carry more than their share.