MR MASSEY AGAIN

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 9571, 18 August 1909, Page 3

MR MASSEY AGAIN

ON TAXATION'QUESTIONS.. OPPOSITION LEADER SCENTS INCREASES. A CRITIC UNOEK CRITICISM. Conversing with a representative of the "New Zealand Herald," at Auckland, Mr Massey, leader of the Opposition, referring to trie address given recently at Timaru, by tha Hon. Dr Pindlay, Attorney-General, said lie hardly thought that Dr Findlay, in his new capacity of spokesman for the Ministry, was being taken very seriously by the public. Still there were one or two statements made by the Minister on which it might be as well to throw a little additional light. "First, then," said Mr Massey, "the Attorney-Genreal said I blundered in criticising his Timaru speech. Nothing of the sort. Dr Findlqy, at Timaru, tried to leave the impression that the present Government had reduced taxation. I corrected that impression, by pointing out from their own figures that j taxation had very greatly increased I during thu time of the present Ad- I ministration, that it was still increasing, and that Dr Findlay's mission appeared to be to prepare the public for a further increase on Socialistic lines, so much so as to quite take the wind- out of Mr Hogg's sails. For instance, Dr Findlay said, 'lndeed, there seems no reason why, after a certain degree of remoteness, the claim of the State should not prevail over that of absentee relatives.' I don't exactly know what Dr Findlay means by a 'certain degree of remoteness,' and he has taken care not to explain

"Dr Findlay had said," continued Mr Massey, "that he (Mr Massey) had stated that if you 'take from the wealthy by taxation you necessarily reduce the fund they devote to wages.' I said nothing of the sort. I was dealing with the proposal to increase the land tax, and I said in effect that if you call upon the settler to pay more than his fair share of taxation you reduce his financial ability to make improvements, and so the worker suffers, and I stand by that sattement "Then, in dealing with land settlement, Dr Findlay says Denmark effected its remarkable subdivison of estates by tha progressive land tax. That statement is misleading. As a matter of fact, the land tax in Denmark is smsll compared with the tend tix in New Zealand, but the Danish Government has for many years past done every thing possible to encourage subdivision and absolute' security of tenure, lending money at very low rates of interest, and smetimea without interest, for a term to enable small farmers to purchase the freehold of their holdings. The Danish Government is up to date with its land laws; the New Zaaland Government is fifty years behind the times in land legislation, as in many other maftsr3. But if the progressive land tax is such a very good thing, In the opinion of Dr Findlay and his colleagues, why do they not apply it to native lands?"

"Do you think that, apart from the money required for the hattleship, that the Government will propose to increase taxation?" Mr Mas gey vvaa asked. "I do most certainly; all t!,e iu' dkaiijus go,in that cirection. The gospel that Dr Fiudiay is preaching is the gospel ot taxation, but anyone who looks at the public accounts for the June quarter will sea tnat the financial position is very far from satisfactory; and that a great deal more ia required than the systematic unci spasmodic efforts at retrenchment that the Government is making. II ;d the diiitLulty faced in time it would have been very much easier to deal with now, but the Government would never admit that it was drifting into financia trouble until after the elect'o.r, and then it was too late to t°' r • steps chat s:iould have been t»<months bef-ji-j An increase ot ... : 1tion during the camry, sess'ou .>ay improve matters, from tha pj <>: view of the Government, but •• n the country's point of view the effect will be bad, and it should therefore be avoided if possible.''

THE MINISTER'S REPLY. .

The report of Mr Massey's remarks were shown to the Hon. Dr Findlay by a "New Zealand limes" representative, who asked the Minister:— "Do you see that Mr Massey calls you a special pleader tor the Government, and that you are hoc taken seriously by the public?" "Oh, yes," replied Dr Findlay, "very crushing critic'Stn, isn't it But 1 am getting quite used to Mr Massey's constant practice of throwing my profession at me as a sufficient answer t) anything 1 say on political My caustic critic seems co think that a faans calling settles the validity or sincerity of his argumente. Thus, J suppose, a sheep farmer must, by virtue of his occupation, have a lofty and " abiding sense of conscience, candour, and the common-

weal. "Mr Massey begins hte reply to me with this delightful argumentum ad hominem, and his friends must surely regret that he did not conliny himself to it. This would at least have avoided a display of controversial methods much more amusing to his opponents than his party. The leader of the Opposition's first rule of controversy appears to bq: 'lt id easiet and safer to answer what waa not £said than what was said'—just as it is easier to knock down a dummy nf your own making that get within the guard of an actual antagonist. Let me illustrate this: 'I am told'—to use Mr Massey'u exact words—'that Dr Findlay at Timaru tried to leave

the, impression that the present Go-

j vernment had reduced taxation. I \ (Mr Massey) corrected that impression by pointing out from their own figures that the taxation had very greatly increased during the time of the present Administration.' "Thus I am represented and thus answered by Mr Massey. Now, for what 1 did say at Timaru: I said that the taxation on the great mass of our people had been reduced by the present Government, by an amount equal to from 26 per cent to 80 per cent, while more was now paid in direct taxation by some 41,000 people—not because the rate had been increased, but because

■f their wealth or income had greatly increased. This Mr unequivocally denied, and fell back for pioof upon a sum in simple division found in the Year Book, where the total taxation from all sources, direct and indirect, is divided by our total population (man, woman and I child), and thus an increased per capita quotient is shown. Does Mr Massey still maintain his former denial that the masses of our people are now paying less in taxation than formerly? That ie the question. / "Again, Mr Massey represents me as 'lying "There seems no reason w y, after a certain degree ot remoteness of kinship, the claim of the State should not prevail over that of absentee relatives. I (Mr Massey) don't know what Mr Findlay means by a certain degree of remoteness, and he has taken care ot to explain." "Thus I am credited with a statement that where property is left by a decaaesd to an absentee relative of remote kinship the State's claim to that proprety should prevail over that of the relative. I said, as any i report of my speech will show, no \ such thing. I was dealing with death duties in Dunedin, and there pointed out that in fifteen years £51,000,000 of weakh in deceased estates had passed to hands that had not earned it, while all the State got—the State that had helped to create much of that wealth —was

£'d 16s per cent. I showed that many of our landed estates escaped duty altogether, and I then declared that when a man died in New Zealand without making any will —that is, without leaving any intimation as t where he wished his wealth to do, an, moreover, die without leaving any one in New Zealand related to hi.n (no matter, how remotely), it was unfair that that wealth should pass out of New Zealand, where it was made, to some second cousin or more distant next-of-kin resident abroad, of whose existence the deceased was probably not even aware. I made it perfectly clear that I was dea'mg—1. With cases where the deceased had left no direction as to how his estate should go. 2. With remote relatives such as second cousins and those of more dis|tant kinship. 3. Where these relatives were absentees and had no claim of any kind upon the deceased. "I suggested no limitation of the owner's rights in such cases to leave the property by will to whom he pleased—to the Emperor of China it hi t.-iOught fit. That is what I said, correctly stated. Does Mr Massey agree with my view, and if not, why not?

"Again Mr Massey states:—'ln dealing with land settlement Dr Fir.dlay says that Denmark effected its remarkable subdivision of estates by a progressive Jand tax. That statement is misleading.' "Why does Mr Massey say this statement is misleading? Does he deny its accuracy? Apparently. Let me, then, cite a reliable authority. Mr Andrew Carnegie is not a Socialist, and is usually reputed to e most accurate about his facts. This is what he says in his book 'Problems of To-day,' published last year. I use his own words: 'That wonderful little country Denmark not long ago was in the hands of a few owners who rented it to farmers whose position was that of farmers in the United Kingdom today. The land that seventy odd years ago was in the hands of a few is now owned by no less than 86,000 people, and as to 5,000 of the holdings the law prevents them being merged to form hrger farms or estates. No revolution was necessary to produce this chinge—no Government ownership. The country was divided into farma of a certain size, and a progressive land tax levied. For one man, cultivating one farm, the tax was small. If he had another the tax was much great-* er upon the second, and so on until the additions became prohibitive, the object being to favour the owning of farms by those who cultivated them.' Mr Carnesie adds:—'The produce of land is now three times as great as under the former system cf large proprietors.' "Will Mr Massey now tell me where my statements about Denmark are misleading? He greatly admires the methods of the Danish Government. Does he approve of the severity of the method' by which the large estates of Denmark were broken up? Does he desire I our progressive land tax to be, made like the Danish one, prohibitive? "Mr Massey assures his interviewer that all I have said indicates ' that the ijovemment intends to incresae taxation. As regards death ' duties, I certainly think they should be increased, for the reasons I have already given from the platform. The intention of the Government to increase these duties was stated by the Prime Minister some months ago. As regards other taxation—either direct or indirect—l have nowhere suggested that it should be increased. My motive for dealing with the subject of taxation was to refute the constantly-repeated charge that the present Government had increased the burdens upon the great masses of the people. The people who are making such a fuss about taxation just now are thp*e best able to pay it: 950,000 of our people haye neither land or income iarge enough to pay direct taxation. Private wealth in New Zealand has increased over 250 millions sterl- • ing in seventeen years That in- ■ crease would give every adult man and woman in New Zealand to-d:-y nearly £SOO each. Who mainly have go this enormous increase in our I private wealth? Mainly those who J are now complaining about our taxation ; those who, because their wealth has grown—largely because of what the State itself has done — have now at the old rate to pay something more in taxation. That is really their complaint, and like the workman in "Punch's' recent cartoon, most people would like to have half uf that complant. „."I am glad Mr Massey has given up the wages fund fallacy, but he really should not have misled some of his journalistic friends into thinking that it was as sound and relentless us the law of gravitation."