THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1891. FINANCIAL FIGURES.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2242, 18 August 1891, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, 1891. FINANCIAL FIGURES.

In order to show that farmers will be unfairly taxed, the Christehurch Press gives the following figures :

This is very clever, but unscrupulously dishonest argument. It means that if a man puts into land a sum equal to the amount another man puts into business the land tax on the farmer will be over four times as much as the income tax on the business man. The object of that is to make the farmer discontented, by inducing him to believe that he is paying an undue share of taxation. Let us see whether this is true. Mark, first of all, that no taxation is exacted from the business man until he makes £SOO a year. That 'is wrong, but we shall let it pass. IWe shall therefore begin at where both the . farmer and business man make £SOO a year each. Mark, first of all, that the business man only pays an income tax of £5, while the farmer pays a land tax of £23 8s 9d. That seems very unfair, and it would be if it were true, but it is not. Take notice that the capital of both is £SOOO, and that a land tax is charged on the whole sura, without any exemption. Part of the £SOOO must consist of improvements, horses, sheep, cattle, etc., and the question is, What part ? Is the value of the improvements and stock half the value of a farmer’s propert}'? We think it is, but farmers can judge for themselves. Then the £SOOO must be reduced by one half, that is £2500; then there is £SOO exemption to come off that, which will bring it down to £2OOO. Now is it fair for the Press to try to gull people in this .way, by omitting the exemptions and making it appear that the farmer would have to pay land tax on £3OOO more than he really will. Take now the £2OOO at one penny in the £, and it will be found the farmer will only have to‘pay £8 6s 8d instead of £23 8s 9d, whereas under the property tax he would.have

had to pay £lB 15s. The farmer'thus clears £lO 6s 8d by the change. Of course this calculation is based on the supposition that the valuation of improvements, stock, etc., is half the total valuation of a farmer’s property, but of this the farmer is the best judge. Now if the farmer will be unfairly treated under a land and income tax, how was he treated when there was no income tax at all ? As we have shown, under the property tax the farmer had to pay £lB 15s; but the professional man who made £SOO a year like the farmer escaped scot free, and if he’ made £SOOO a year he escaped scot free also. Is it not wonderful that the Tories did not find out that the farmer was cruelly wronged then ? Is it not strange that they did not find out that the farmer who only made £SOO a year paid £lB 15s, while the professional man who made £6OOO a year paid, no income tax at all ? Are these the friends of the farmers, who never saw this? They have gulled the farmers long enough; they have led them by the nose, and crushed them with taxation. Our oqinion, however, is, that they will do so no longer. When the tax comes to be collected by-and-bye the farmers will find it all out for themselves; they will know what they paid under the property tax and what they pay under the land tax, and they will then be able to judge who.are their real friends.

TAXING ABSENTEES, Another grand reform has been carried. Absentees will now have to pay a special tax of 20 per cent, over and above the sum .they would have to pay if they lived in the colony. For instance, supposing a man’s tax amounted to £2O, he would have to pay that if he lived in the colony, but if he lived in any other part of the world he would have to pay £24. This is really just and fair, but, though pretty stiff, we think it ought to be much higher. The absentee is sucking the life-blood of the colony, and it is only just aud fair to blunt his fangs. This is what Mr , Rolleston would call in his own peculiarly high-falutin’ style, “ a tax for punitive purposes.” We notice that Mr Rolleston shed a tear or two over it, and thonght it very hard that absentees should be specially taxed. Mr Bryce, who has been chosen as their chief by the Tories, is more Liberal than Mr Rolleston, for Mr Bryce not only voted but spoke in support of the motion. Mr Kennedy Macdonald said the absentees contributed one-tenth of the taxation, so if 20 per cent, is added it will amount to a good round sum. This tax will also cause some of them to return to New Zealand.

THE BANKS. It would seem that the party in office is always the friend of the banks. Several times the present Government have been accused of truckling to the banks, and on last Wednesday evening no less a personage than our own Mr Rhodes jumped on them for this. The position was as follows: The clause under discussion proposed to tax mortgagees for the amount of their mortgages; that is, if a man lends £IOO on mortgage on land, he, and not the landowner, must pay the land tax on it. Mr Ballanee proposed to exempt overdrafts advanced by banks from coming under this head, and very fairly too, we think, because an overdraft is not like a fixed mortgage, it fluctuates. The banks, of course, would have to pay income tax on the interest. Mr Rhodes got excited, really excited, over it, and called for a division to show the world .that the present Government were only the dupes of the banks, Mr Rhodes is a mortgagee ; he lends money on mortgage, and, like the dog in the manger, he does not like the banks to get an advantage which he does not enjoy. But Mr Rhodes was beaten, for only 10 voted with him while 43 voted against him. It is very sad, but it is true. It is, we think, well that the banks have got some slight advantage, because if they had not they would doubtless raise the price of money, and their customes would have to pay it. ■ THE LAW OF LIBEL. It is popularly supposed that the newspapers have great power, yet a bill defining the law of libel has been off and on before the House for the past ten or twelve years, and it has not yet passed. There can be no doubt but that it is wanted. To give an instance of how necessary it is, a penniless architect in Dunedin brought an action against the Dunedin Star 'some years ago. Of course he lost the ease, because nothing libellous had been published, but the Star was put to great expense through it, and had no means of redress. Now is it fair, that any man of straw can put a newspaper to expense in this fashion ? We do not think it is, yet for years and years the Bill has been before the House and it never passed, aud while newspapers have been advocating the claims of everyone else it is very seldom they have complained of this. The Bill has now practically passed, but some of the discussion which took place in the Upper House was really delicious. The clause under discussion was that anyone taking an action against a newspaper should give security to the extent of £25 to pay the newspaper’s costs ip the eveqt qf the newspayer winning, Mr White I said this was giving license, not»

liberty. Mr Miller said “ the Press was a disgrace to human nature,” and Mr Pharazyn said that “ unless something was done respectable journalists would take their capital out of the country.” There it will be seen that the bogey of frightened capital was stalked out to frighten people. Now we know something about this, and we can say that no journalist will fly out of the country with his capital, because he would not have a great deal to go with if he tried. It is exactly the same with others, and this shows what an empty cry this frightened capital business is.

Capital invested in trade or manufacture. If rate of earning per annum. Annual earning. Annual income tax A Percent. A ; A s. d. 1,000 5 50 Nil. 1,000 10 aoo Nil. 2,000 5 100 Nil, 2,000 10 200 Nil. a,ooo 5 150 Nil. 3,000 10 300 Nil, 5,000' 5 250 Nil. 5,000 10 500 5 0 0 10,000 5 . ,500 5 0 0 10,000 10 1,000 17 10 0 Capital If invested annual Annual Annual in rate of .earning. land tax. land. earning. A Percent. A £ s. d. 1,000 5 50 2 18 1,000 10 100 2 18 2,000 5 100 8 6 8 2,000 10 200 8 6 8 3,000 6 150 12 10 0 3,000. 10 300 12 10 0 5,000 5 250 23 8 9 5,000 10 500 23 8 9 10,000 5 500 62 1 8 10,000 10 1,000 52 1 8