INCOME TAX

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 204, 23 May 1919, Page 7

INCOME TAX

x THE UNFAIR TREATMENT OF THE FAMILY MAN. . ■: Sir,—l agree with tho contentions of "Reform" appeariug in your issue of May 22. Every unmarried person, mal» . or female, should lso taxed on income' in excess of .£l5O a year, and, there should be liberal concessions for all children ■until their period of education is com. pleted. The family man contributes to indirect taxation through Customs duties, railways, tramways, and so on, very much move than the single person-or the childless married person, and he should be met by liberal and real concessions in regard to direct taxation. The exemption from income tax which has been allowed for children might have been a real concession had the special war taxation also been included in tho exemption, but the high cost of living plus tho war taxation have imposed a real burden upon the fathers and mothers of young children. Tho mothers have suffered particularly because of tlie impossibility of .procuring domestic help. The hard-worked mother of a .young family whose lmsband has an, incomo even of .i'WO per year has- less cash to spend on herself and far less leisure than tho average single domestic helper or other worker. Yet the domestic helper and other single worker escape, taxation while the family man pays.

Is it just that this state or affairs should bo allowed to continue? This queslion touches tho basis of our national existence, and surely is worthy of the thoughts and' attention of our. best statesmen and editors. .Unless the lot of tho fathers and mother's and children is improved the national outlook is clouded. There will be no soldiers and no workers for tho future, and old John Bull will be asking: ■ WHEKE ARE MY CHILDREN? May 22, 1919.