"UNTO HIM THAT HATH SHALL BE GIVEN," ETC.

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2805, 24 June 1916, Page 7

"UNTO HIM THAT HATH SHALL BE GIVEN," ETC.

Sir,—On looking through the Budget I take exception to the proposal to raise •£i<W,ooo to be expended in bonuses to Civil Servants whose individual salaries do not reach per annum. Considering the number of persons in ordiniiry walks of life who do not enjoy anything'like per annum, leaviug a comfortable pension later on out of tho question, 1 consider it an unjußt proposal. If the intention is genuine to ameliorate the condition of those who foel .the burden of the increased cost of living, why not utilise this wfiiOO.OOO in bettering the condition of those whose salaries do not reach J!200 per annum, irrespective of whether they are Civil Servants or "common or garden people"' I am sure this proposal would catch just as many votes, if not more, than the present one. If we are to mako a favoured people of our Civil Servants, 'why not go the "whole hog" at once, frank their correspondence, give them free railway passes, free tram rides, etc., or is it necessary to keep a bit up our sleevo for each election?

There is one other matter not directly arising out of tho Budget I would like to mention. If my point of view is wrong I'should like-to be corrected. A few days ago, in reply to a question in the House, the Minister of. Finance made th.o statement that a farmer in making up his incomo tax Teturns was

not entitled to deduct the amount of interest lie paid ou his mortgage, as this amount was deducted off his land tax, and if deductod from liis income would g*vo liim a double deduction, Now, to my mind, this "double deduction" would be only a fair thing. Why should a farmer pay any taxation oil his debts? Also, if a fanner pays a mortgage, say, .£SOO, does not this amount appear on this man's income returns for taxation, therefore, a "double deduction" beini; provided against, does not tho Government draw the income tax twico over on the same inoney?—l am, etc., W.N.J.