The Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 1891. POLITICAL NOTES.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2214, 25 June 1891, Page 2

The Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, JUNE 25, 1891. POLITICAL NOTES.

The Financial Statement has evidently appalled the Opposition. With the exception of a few foolish remarks their newspapers are maintaining silence on the subject. They seem dazed by the freedom, ease, and ability with which the Premier has arranged the finances of the colony. The Press and Otago Daily Times have their correspondents in Wellington ; these have been trying to get the opinions of members on the subject, and amongst others Mr Ehodes has given them his views. Mr Ehodes says " that a certain small class has been singled out to bear the chief weight of taxation." What an extraordinary assertion. We hope, for his own sake, Mr Ehodes has been misrepresented. The total amount of the revenue is ovei £4,000,000, and that is raised by taxation, direct and indirect. Of that vast sum only £61,000 is raised in the manner to which Mr Rhodeß objects, that is, by graduated taxation, yet he callß that comparatively-speaking, trifling sum " the chief weight of taxation." The Government has taken £60,000 off small farmers and put it en large farmers, and Mr Ehodes don't like it. Mr Eolleston is another who is in a troubled Btate of mind, because he thinks the tax will fall very heavily on such men as Sir John Hall and Mr John Grigg, of Longbeach. This is the Mr Eolleston who used to deliver homilies on the evils of large estates to his Geraldine constituents not long ago. Here we find him now melting into pity at She sorrows of the owners of these vast estates, because, alas, they have to pay between half a farthing and a whole farthing in the £ more than they used to under the property tax. We regret that we cannot mingle our teara with those of

Mr Hollegton over the misfortunes of these plutocrats.

Perhaps the most carious criticism of the Financial Statement is that in which ic is alleged that It will drive capital away. A great many of the Tories are weeping salt tears because it will drive capital away and destroy industry, and then there will be no work for the people, This is good—really good. The statement has been framed so as to relieve iadustry of taxation —that is its chief aim and object—and yet the crities tell us it will destroy industry. Then the way to foflter industry is to tax it. The fact is, these peeple think there is no industry except ebeep. But the way they say it is designed to cateh the votes of the farmers is charming. Of course they will not give Mr Ballance credit for designing it to benefit the farmers—he is only doing it to catch their votes. Farmers, however, will not care a great deal about what object Mr Ballance has in view, so long as they are relieved of taxation, and that they will be relieved of it goes without saying. Per instance, a farm of 300 acres, valued at £lO an acre, paid under the Property Tax £lO 8s 4d. Take the same farm under the proposed Bcheaie and see what it will have to pay. It is generally supposed that half the value of a well cultivated farm consists of the improvements, in which ease the farmer would only have to pay £4 8s 4d. The value of the improvements is te be deducted up to £3000; for instance, say a farm is worth £6OOO and half ©f that value is represented by improvements, the £3OOO are deducted, and from the remaining £3OOO the £SOO exemption is again taken, leaving only £2500 to be taxed; whereas under the Property Tax £5500 would have been taxed. Under the property tax the 600 acre farm would pay £22 18s 4d, but under the new tax £lO 8s 4d. It will make a great difference to farmers, and we presume they will not ask what prompted Mr Ballance in making the change. Perhaps they will not forget also that seven years ago the Stout-Vogel Government wanted to exempt from taxation £3OOO of the improvements of farmers, so its nothing new with Mr Ballance.