The Dominion. FRIDAY, MAY 19, 1911. FINANCE AND GROWTH.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1131, 19 May 1911, Page 4

The Dominion. FRIDAY, MAY 19, 1911. FINANCE AND GROWTH.

Although it is always difficult to put life into statistics, the figures in the cable message summarising Mr. Lloi'd-Georoe's Budget statement become extraordinarily interesting when they aro measured up against the particulars of the finance and trade of New Zealand. The main features of the financial and economic position of the United Kjngdom, as shown in the Chancellor's speech, are, of course, tho enormous growth of British trade and the heavy reduction of tho National Debt. Owing to the rejection of the 1909 Budget, the actual revenue and expenditure during 1900-10 were knocked out of shape and are no measure of the true financial position, and no doubt until the end of ,timo those interested in comparative statistics will revile the Lords for creating a breach in the continuity of the tables. The position was righted, however, after April 1 of last year, and the discontinuity reforrod to has no effect on biennial comparisons. For tho two years 1909-10 and 1010-11 the revenue amounted to £335,547,044 and the expenditure to £329,940,278. For the two preceding years, 1907-8 and 19089, the total revenue was £308,115,985 and the total expenditure £304,104,459. The average annual revenue and expenditure per head for the> past four years, the average population bsing 44jj millions, were respectively £3 12s. and £3 10s., as against about £10 in each case in Now Zealand for 1910-11. The taxation was upon the average about £2 17s. per head of the population, as against an average of about £4 lCs. in New Zealand,

Measured by British standards, £2 17s. per head, this is really a high rate of taxation: it has been called a war-rate. Yet it is not much more than half the rate' per head in New Zealand. Out of this comparatively low rate of taxation, and this extremely low rate of general revenue, as measured by New Zealand standards, Great Britain is not only ablo to provide an efficient Government and maintain u national stability and supremacy unexampkd. in the history of the world, but is able also to reduce har National Debt by over £70,000,000 in fivs years, and to provide the colossal sum of between £00,000,000 and £70,000,000 annually for the defence .of her vast Empire against all the other nations of the earth. But, it may be said, this comparison loses sight of tho fact that Britain is an old and long-established nation, and is thtirefora free from the burden of development that must be borne by a young country like Now Zealand. Th'iit plea can bo immediately disposflcl of by pointing out that Britain is burdened with the defence of •tho Empire, and applies to it a highor percentage'of her income than is "devoted ■ hero to development. But, 'for tho sake of argument, let the plea bo admitted for a moment. Let us take Lhe necessity for development into consideration. During the last decade the population of Great Britain has increased by about 10 per cent, and of New Zealand by 3.3 1-3 per cent (roughly). We should therefore expect Now Zealand's trade, especially when the vast borrowings and the high taxation are considered, to have grown by a percentage enormously larger thanthc percentage of increase in Britain's trade. But what, as a matter of fact, do we find? Mn. Lloyd-Geof.ge has given tho increase of British trade with foreign countries .is £213,000,000 in three years. In 1907 the total value of Britain's foreign trade was £1,164,000,000, so that in 1910 it was £1,377,000,000. This is an increase of over 18 per cent. Now Zealand's total foreign trade in 1907-8 was £35.330,263; in 1010-11 it was £38,882,253—an increase of £3,555,900, or just over' 10 per cent. The excuse, therefore, of the necessities of development fails utterly to explain or justify tho enormous taxation per head in New Zealand.