WAR RELIEF ASSOCIATION

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2819, 10 July 1916, Page 6

WAR RELIEF ASSOCIATION

AND THE DUTY OP GOVERNMENT. (To the Editor.) Sir,—The War Relief Association is engaged ill work of a most liumano character; but is it not a crying scandal tliac, ill a wealthy country like, this, the Government docs not raise funds by taxation for all purposes of this kind? Why should this kind,of relief take the shape of charitable aid, and be wrung, for most part, out of the kindly and generous members of the community who can probably least afford it. I have personally received a circular from the War Relief Association asking us to contribute to its funds, and I daresay any of its members, who know me, consider I ought to contribute liberally. I should like to; but I find it impossible to do so and meet my other obligations. Here is the position: I am in receipt of what most .people would call a good salary, but 1 have a household of eleven (including a servant) to provide for. All my children are attending school or college. The cost of living has made a difference of an average of considerably over '£2 a week since the war - began, largely the result of middlemen—exploitation of the necessaries of life. I can scarcely go along our streets without being importuned by well-intentioned and generously-disposed ladies to contribute to this, that, or the other war charity, and I suppose, if I declined to. contribute my mite, I should be regarded as.a heartless man, and perhaps a disloyal subject. My children, too, every .week or so make demands upon me for charitable funds contributed to'by their schools or colleges! Now, Mr. Editor, I ask, is this charitable aid method of raising funds right or reasonable, when the thing could be provided for'by Government by strictly equitable taxation? Hero is how the Government treats me: I,have a taxable income of from JC3SO to ,£455 a year. 1 pay over .£65 a year for superannuation, for which no '/exemption" has been conceded so far! My milk and butter bill for the year exceeds ;£6O; .my bootmaker's account over ,£3O a year—and yet the-married man. with no family and the bachelor, in receipt of the same salary or income as I, pay npt a copper more than 1 have to pay in income tax toward the revenue of_the country! Is this reasonable? Nay, not only does the Government make me contribute annually by direct taxation, as much toward the revenue of the country as the bachelor or the married man with no family, but as soon as my sons attain the age of 20, and while they arc still minors, legally and politically, and have done nothing whatever to recoup me for tho cost entailed in bringing them up and educating them, the Government commandeers their lives without in any way consulting mo or my interests, or consiilering'their obligations to me! ,1s this just or reasonable? Now, Sir, you are probably aware that I am a conscriptionist—that I consider it the duty of every male, who is physically fit, to defend his country when the cause of justice and righteousness demands such defence; biit I also consider it the duty—a duty not yet fully appreciated by onr Statesmen—to Bee to it that all those who have claims on the lives of our volunteer (and even conscript) soldiers, shall be dyly provided for by pension or insurance scheme. .1 ustice and reason demand that much, and unless our statesmen make all reasonable provision in these connections while the taxation or finance measures are under consideration in the Houses of Parliament it. needs no prophet, to forecast a day of political reckoning for them. At any rale there should be but one way— the only equitable way—of raising funds to provide relief for every ease of distress or hardship due lo tho wai —that is, by laxation—graduated taxation.—l am, etc.,

FOR KING. COUNTRY, HOME, AND HEARTH. July 7, 1916.