The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, JULY 30, 1887. INCIDENCE OF TAXATION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1614, 30 July 1887, Page 2

The Temuka Leader SATURDAY, JULY 30, 1887. INCIDENCE OF TAXATION.

Me Rlitmaw asked & very important question, at Mr Rolleston’* meeting at Woodbury last Saturday evening. He said be knew a man who had bought 1000 acres from a Company and improved it until it was taxed at the rate of £4 per acre. The land of the Company was not improved, and was taxed at £2 per acre. Mr Eolleston said this was right. The man had increased his wealth, and because he had it was right to tax him. The answer is certainly unsatisfactory, but il is consistent with the general policy pursued by the Atkinson party and the intentions of the Political Reform Association. The whole of that party’s programme is: Don’t promote industry, but let us have sheep-walks, and let us import goods cheaply for the sheepfarmers. Mr Platman pointed out as striking an instance of the injustice of the property tax as could be produced. The man he referred to was actually taxed for increasing the wealth of the country and developing its natural resources, and yet Mr Eolleston and the Reformers will not admit that this hinders industrial development. They say that to increase the property tax by 3-16ths of a penny in the £ on the Company who have not improved their land would drive capital away, but it will not hinder industrial de-

velopment to put a tax of 13-16ths of a penny in the £ on every foot of fencing, draining, and other improvements the farmer makes upon his land! Tax the improvements of the farmer, but do not tax the sheepwalk of the Company, is the sum and substance of the Atkinsonian policy, and the object of the Political Reform Association aim at replacing in power the same party. Now the present Government suggested a way of dealing with this question. They proposed that all agricultural improvements to the value of £3OOO should be exempt from taxation, but the Atkinsonian party—those dear friends of the farmers —threw the measure out, and now the farmers have to pay a tax on everything they possess. How farmers have not seen through the Atkinsons, Halls, and Eollestons long ago is inexplicable. “ Tax the farmer’s improvements, tax his industry, tax him if he adds a room to his house, tax him if he drains his land, tax him if he sows wheat and exports it t* England—tax him for everything —but lot the Company off as lightly as you can, for if you put on any increase in the Company’s taxation they will clear out of the country!” That is the Atkinsonian cry. The present Government says : “We shall not discourage the farmer from improving his land, and increasing production by taxing him; we shall exempt from taxation his industry, and we shall thus place him on a level with the Company 1” Who then, is the farmer’s friend? The party who would tax his improvements, or the party who would not ? Let the farmers think over this. Let them not forget that the present Government would relieve them of a tax upon their industry if they could, and that it was the Atkinson-Hall party who refused to accede to it, and threw the measure out. The AtkinsonHall patty, through their agent—the Reform Association—are trying to impress upon the minds of farmers at present that the present Ministry are the natural enemies of farmers, and no doubt they will in many instances succeed in doing so. It would be interesting for farmers to inquire into the cause of all the trouble that is being taken to make them regard the present Ministry as their enemies, and if they do so they will find that it all arises from this: The present Ministry are making efforts to relieve farmers and the industrial classes of the burden of taxation, and place it on the shoulders of speculators, monopolists and money-rings, who made immense fortunes out of the Public Works policy. That is the whole secret. Sir Julius Vogel said in his recent speech in Christchurch that one of his most violent opponents was a man whose property had increased in value from £15,000 to £250,000 in consequence of the Public Works policy—and the cause of it was because he was obliged to pay taxes. His property had increased in value by the immense sum of £235,000, yet he thought he had no right to be called upon to pay taxes for it. Let farmers make no mistake; if they listen to those opposed to the present Government, and vote for the Atkinson party, they will regret it as long as they live.