MR OLDFIELD ON TAXATION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2398, 13 September 1892, Page 4

MR OLDFIELD ON TAXATION.

TO THE EDITOR. j Sir, —Since my last letter the weather 1 has been too good to allow t me for news- j paper warfare, but I now take a wet day j to attend to your last, as to the fairness of the Land and Income Tax. You point out that a farmer with £8,500 worth of property pays no more than a lawyer with a thousand a year, now I will give a few figures on my side, and see what it comes to. A farmer with £3,500 capital may ho taken as, say, 350 acres of fair land with stock, which by care and the work of himself and family produces £350 a year no*. How does he stand with people that make that income in other lines ? Allow ing the £ISOO for and exemptions, you tax £2OOO at Id, £8 0s 8d; the lawyer, 3d in the pound on £SO, pays 12s Gd; the tradesman 6d in the pound on £SO, tl ss; so that income considered, the farmer pays over 13 times as much as the lawyer, and nearly 7 times as much as the tradesman. And then there are little pickings allowed to tlmm. If they invest the £SO in life assurance they pay none, but a farmer is allowed nothing off his tax if he insures. That I suppose you will consider quite right and proper, and if they invest in building societies they have an exemption for any surplus in come they care to invest, so there is no finality about it at all, and, carefully invested, it seems a person can escape the income tax altogether. There is another thing I would like to point out. When we had the property tax it rose and fell, according to the wants of the revenue, and although you always reckon it at Id in the £ in your arguments, during the 12 years it has been in force it has been Id only 6 times, and it has been as low as gd ; so you pull it over your way rather far. Under the property tax real property only and all other kinds of property together paid in about equal parts to the revenue ; now, according to figures from the Coraissioner of Taxes, land pays £287,000, income, £92,000, or the land pays three-fourths of the lot; and while the land tax is fixed the income tax is left open as to amount. In conclusion, 1 would point out once more that I am not arguing as to how farmers stand now as against the property tax; it is how they stand now as against their neighbors. As to your advice to me, it is very good—what there is of it, and plenty of it, too—such as it is. If you can prove to the Temuka people that I am a bigger fool than yourself I shall be happy to exchange photos, with you.—l am, etc., WiJAIAM OIDKIBLD.

[NO! NO! NO! If you want to trade, trade fair. You could not expect the photo, of a wise head for such as yours. The man with £3500 you speak of who pays £8 6s 8d under the Land Tax paid £l2 10s under the Property Tux. Would ho not bo a fool if ho complained of his taxation having been reduced by £4 3s 4d ? The lawyer who pays 12s 00 Income Tax paid nothing _ under die Property Tax. The change is good for the farmer and bad for the lawyer. You don’t like comparisons instituted between the Property Tax and the Land and Income Tax. Of course not, but that is just what people will do. banners will just compare the sum tiny paid under the Property Tax witli what they will pay under the Land Tax, ami they wi!) decide accordingly. Tim/ will see then that the lawyers and othu. i win paid nothing under the Property Tax .me paying their share now. Let u t hear from you next wet day.— Ed.]