Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

LESS TAXATION.

THE FIRST INSTALMENT. REBATE ON LAND TAX. BILL PASSED IN THE HOUSE. By Telegraph.—Press Association. Wellington, Last Night. In the House to-day Mr. Massey moved the second reading of the Land Tax Amendment Bill, granting ten per cent, rebate to payers of land tax who pay before the 28th instant. Mr. Massey stated that this was the first instalment of the reduction in taxation. He anticipated something similar would be done for payers of income tax, but just to what extent the benefit would extend be could not at present say. Mr T. K. Sidey (Dunedin South) declared that this proposal should not have been submitted to Parliament before the whole of the Government’s proposals were before the House. Mr. A. S. Malcolm (Clutha) supported the Bill, as the first of a series dealing with a reduction of taxation. Mr. W. A. Veitch (Wanganui) adversely criticised the Bill, from the point of view that it was a concession to large landowners, and he urged that the Government should rather devote their concessions to assist those engaged in secondary industries. He moved an amendment limiting the number of persons who were to receive the benefit of the rebate, inasmuch as it was an indication to the Government that no concession should be given to owners of large areas of valuable land. The Premier raised a question as to whether an amendment could be moved at that stage, and the Speaker ruled that it was a committee amendment, and could not be moved in the House. FARMERS’ BURDEN.

Mr. D. Jones (Kaiapoi) supported the Bill. He said those who were denouncing large land-owners were probably not Large land-owners only because of lack of opportunity. The present Government had hit the large land-owner harder than any other party that had been in power. The Government was cutting up land for settlement, and doing it effectively. Farmers had been carrying a heavy burden of taxation and would welcome the Bill.

Mr. C. E. Statham (Dunedin Central) said he would vote for the second reading, but in committee he would like to see several amendments made. He would like to see power given to the Government to accept land tax by instalments. Mr. Massey said he had not overlooked this point, and be thought it could be done without legislation. Continuing, Mr. Statham said it was no use granting a reduction in taxation unless there was a reduction in State expenditure.

Mr. Massey said a reduction was going on from day to day, and would reach the House before long. Mr. W. H. Field (Otaki) said it was wrong to suppose that the majority of farmers made large sums during the fat years of the war. The Bill might benefit the “big” man if he had no mortgage, but the “big” man with a mortgage / needed this reduction, because no onp had more difficulty in paying his taxation. Mr. O. Hawken (Egmont) contended that the small man had been doing remarkably well during recent years, and it was the big man that needed relief. To put further taxation on the larger landowners would amount to practical confiscation. To tax wealth excessively, as we were doing in this country, was a great mistake, as it simply meant restriction of investment and unemployment

DRIFT TO THE TOWNS. Mr. G. Mitchell (Wellington South) said he approved of the Bill to a limited extent. He thought it should only apply to men who held land to the value of £20,000 and under. In times of crisis we must: Firstly, reduce public expenditure, and, secondly, increase production, but the man who held large areas of land was hindering production. Much as the Government had done to put soldiers on the land, there had not been that amount of settlement we ought to have, and there was a disquieting drift to the towns, simply because people could not get on the land. He did not think the Bill would help the small man nearly so much as the big man, who could afford to pay, and he proposed to vole for the amendment that would be moved at a later stage. Sir John Luke (Wellington North) said if we were in normal times he might agree with the last speaker, but he had been creditably informed that many large landowners were in just as great straits financially as the small man. He did not believe in sectional legislation, and therefore did not approve that it be limited to a certain class of tax-payers. Mr. H. E. Holland (Buller) said no matter how they looked at the Government policy it was the rich man’s policy. The Premier had painted a picture of prosperous times wool was going up, the price oi wheat was assured, and there were large accumulated surpluses, if not in cash then in values. Why, then, was it not possible to finance the affairs of the country without giving concessions amounting to many thousands of pounds to rich men ? When this rebate was given someone would have to pay for it, and what he wanted to know was who was going to pay for it. Mr. E. Newman (Manawatu) detailed the experiences of sheep-farmers, contending that in some cases there was no return at all from wool. It was the big man who had been hit hardest, and he considered the Bill would give them welcome relief. There could be no increased production without increased finance, and that was what could not be got just now.

THE PREMIER’S REPLY. Mr. Massey, in reply, said the real question before the House was: Are we going to decrease taxation, or are we going on taxing the man on the land? No country ever prospered on excessive taxation, and if we went on taxing the primary and secondary producers of the Dominion when the prices of produce had fallen, then it would simply spell blue ruin. His desire was to so adjust taxation that everyone would bear a fair share. Mr. Massey said his first duty as Finance Minister was to keep the expenditure within the income. We had a serious fall in.the national income, and he was endeavoring to bring expenditure within the present income. He was pleased to say that during the past six weeks the financial position was very encouraging. The proposal made by Mr. A- eitch amounted to charity to a certain class of farmers, and he ventured to say no farmer would accept charity of that

Mr. Massey said the trouble was that so many people regarded the man who owned land as a public enemy. He denied that anything like land aggregation was taking place in the Dominion; on the other had svo-division was going on freely. Coming w the

proposals of the Government he denied there wgre any increases on articles other than luxuries, and that was to be the policy of the Government right through. His desire was to get back to the financial position existing before the war, when we were able to keep the expenditure within the income and pay our way. So far as taxation was concerned, if it went beyond a certain limitthen it would practically become confiscation, and if they went on asking the people on the land to pay the excessive tax which had been imposed in recent years it would amount to confiscation. Personally, his feeling had always been towards the small man and it was so i still. Later on he l oped to reduce the 'taxation on income, but he could not do ! that without first reducing the taxation ion land. He believed that the rebate proposed in the Bill would be of mutual benefit to farmers and the Treasury and in that belief he moved the second reading of the Bill, which was carried on the voices. The Premier claimed urgency for the Bill, as the land tax was now payable. In committee on clause 2 Air. Veitch moved his amendment to limit the rebate to landowners owning land valued at £“20,000 and under. The Premier raised the question that the amendment interfered with the revenues of the Crown and was therefore out of order. Mr. Malcolm, (chairman of the committee) ruled that t'he amendment was in order. On a division the amendment was lost by 38 votes to 15. The Bill was then reported without amendment, read a third time and £*Med.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/TDN19211109.2.46

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Taranaki Daily News, 9 November 1921, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,401

LESS TAXATION. Taranaki Daily News, 9 November 1921, Page 5

LESS TAXATION. Taranaki Daily News, 9 November 1921, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert