THEATRE TICKET TAX.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1581, 26 October 1912, Page 14

THEATRE TICKET TAX.

WHAT THEATRICAL MANAGERS SAY. In- answer to a question put by Mr. Clark (member for Chalmers), the Hon. J. Allen 6tated in tho House that it was not proposed to bring down any legislation .this session to- tax .theatre tickets and devote tho procoods to the upkeep of consumptive sanatoria. The suggestion that theatre tickets should bo taxed is not a new one. It has been brought forward at two'municipal conferences held in Wellington, and each timo has been thrown out on consideration.

Mr. Bert Royle, representative in New Zealand for J. C. Williamson, Limited, states that such a tax would not be practicable in this part of the world. Only a few months ago the stage hands of the Australian theatres succeeded in getting a now award giving higher wages, and as the rcsulb the price ot admission to the dress circle was increased from ss. to Gs. in tho Williamson theatres. As masters went now, tho increasing cost of companies and production did not leave as great a margin of profit as peoplo imagined, not oven with such business as was being done by the Asche-Brayton Company. In his opinion, it would hardly bo possible to pass any charges on to tho long suffering oople, so.he assumed that snch ir tax, V ever made, would mean a curtailment in the cost*of production. "But why," said .Mr. Royle, "suggest lie theatrical profession as the means ">f raising a further tax. Wo at present nay income tax, individually, ant! ""-*. the profits, and look at the risk we take? We ire jiot so sure of our return as, say. tho big drapery houses are of theirs, yet it was actually suggested that wo should bo singled out to bear an extra burden. In addition, too, wo'have to pay royalties and copyright fees, whether the plays pay or -not. The tax would be absurd as '.ots of companies visit New Zealand which do not make a profit, somo of them struggling to keep going. Wero their tiek?t= to be taxed? Surelv not."

Mr. Harold Ashton said that the very idea was iniquitous, unfair, and unjust. Why should they, who contribute more to charity in a year than do all the other professions put together, be singled out to pay the upkeep of sanatoria or anything else erected for tho benefit of the public as a whole. Mr. Hugh Ward's name was surely remembered in Wellington and other parts of New Zealand. How wouljl Mr. Clark define amusements? Is he who takes his pleasure at tho theatre to be taxed, whilst ho who finds sad pleasure ;in a church social or bun-fight to be excluded? Who was to say which amusement should Ijo taxed aud which should not, and why? If the Government were to tax each ticket a penny, we could not pass it nn, without asking the public to pay more than would represent tho amount of the tax. Anyhow, tho very idea of taxing theatres (which were so heavily subsidis" ed in somo countries) was fundamentally wrong, and against all tho ideas of elevat ing the stage, and encouraging artistic productions of which people prate at times.

Of the idea of taxing amusements, Mr. Oscar Ascho (-who had been reading Tuesday evening's debate in the House), said: "Tax everybody seeking amusement, not forgetting those who seek it in the Houso of Representatives!"