“SILK STOCKING BUDGET”

Dominion, Volume 18, Issue 182, 4 May 1925, Page 9

“SILK STOCKING BUDGET”

' OUTCRY AGAINST PROPOSED DUTY f I CHANCELLOR OF EXCHEQUER REPLIES TO CRITICISMS SERIES OF CAREFULLY ADJUSTED BALANCES There has been an outcry against the silk duty proposed in the British Budget, and as a consequence the Treasury has issued a statement to the effect that the criticisms will be considered, and the export trade consulted. Mr Churchill, replying to criticisms, said the silk tax would not diminish employment, and would be paid by an enormous number of people in inconceivably small instalments.

(Rec. May 3. .5.5 p.m.) London, May 2. An outcry has developed over the whole country against Mr. Churchill’s proposed silk duty, which has resulted in the Budget being nicknamed “'the silk stocking Budget.” In consequence of the outcry the Treasury yesterday issued a statement to the effect that the criticisms will be considered rji,rd the export trade be consulted. It is now declared that it was never intended that because an article contained a little silk it was to be taxed to the extent of one-third of its value. There is ap immense range of goods in which a small proportion of silk is employed, and it is admitted that the effect of imposing a tax of one-third bn the full value of such articles would make the duty highly protective. It is understood that Mr. Churchill has been in consultation with the Customs authorities, the regttit of which will be a system of charging calculated to carry out Mr. Churchill’s real intentions. z ARTIFICIAL SILK REPLACING WOOL. The most pointed criticism of the silk duty came in the House of Commons from Miss Wilkinson (Labour), who declared that’ artificial silk had taken the place among working women of wool, which they cannot afford to buy. It was largely used for knitted jumpers, ■which women made themselves, and one pound at three shillings was sufficient for a jumper. She proceeded to argue that a tax of three shillings per pound meant 100 per centum increase, but a tax of four shillings per pound on the heavier silks used by rich women meant only 66 2-3rds percentum of increase. Concerning stockings, _ Miss Wilkinson said a sixpenny .tax might be a matter of indifference' to women who bought stockings at two guineas a pair, but it meant ,33 l-3rd per, cent, increase to womefi who bought artificial stockings Z" at Is. 6|d. per pair. ’ . ' ' TAX UPON INDUSTRY. , ’ The Earl of Oxford, speaking at Glasgow yesterday, declared that a silk tax is a tax upon the raw material of a great industry. Sir Alfred Mond, speaking at Cardiff, asked: "Why destroy one of the few , prosperous industries which the country lias?” It was a mystery who advised Mr. Churcl)ill to take such-a stupid step, and he was certain. Mr. Churchill would be obliged to abandon such a proposal.—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn, MR. CHURCHILL DEFENDS BUDGET LABOUR CRITICS ASSAILED (Rec, May'S, 5.5 p.m.) London, May 1. Mr. Churchill, addressing the Primrose League at the Albert Hall, said his Budget consisted of a series of carefully adjusted balances. The tax on silk would produce exactly four millions this year and seven millions next year, which would precisely' meet the cost of the relief given on earned income to the smaller taxpayers. He was confident the silk tax would not diminish employment, and would be paid by an

enormous number of people in inconceivably small instalments. The women, if convinced- it was for the country’s good, would not hesitate to assume the burden of the tax. Another balance in the Budget was that the McKenna duties would fully defray the cost of Imperial preference. Referring to the previous night’s scene in the House of Commons, Mt. Churchill vigorously assailed the Labour critics. Mr.'Snowden, had said that it was a rich man’s Budget. Let him and his Socialist friends say that at New Yea? to the two hundred thousand widows who would then be drawing pensions; also to the six millions who were assured of pensions; or say to the olcf-age pensioner: "Comrades, we meant to give vou these on a non-con-tributory basis, but we hath to go and help our Russian friends first.”— Reuter. MODIFICATION OF PROPOSALS LIKELY (Rec. May 3, 11.15 p.m.) London, May 3. Mr. Churchill’s Budget has been the subject of an ' increasing volume of criticism during the week-end. The chief points of attacks are the silk duty ;and the added burdens to industry in consequence of the extensions of the insurance scheme. “Reynold’s News” goes so far as to sav that the silk duty ,will be withdrawn and the insurance proposals will be modified, postponed, or withdrawn entirely. ■The effect of such a withdrawal would be to cut the heart out of the Budget entirely. There is no doubt, however, that the Budget proposals are undergoing review at the Treasury, and modifications of the original proposals are not unlikely. ) Mr. J. L. Garvin, discussing the Budget in the “Observer.” says:—“Brjtain lias been kept down by an unexampled taxation. No mortal man could put th s situation right by one first Budget. The work can only be done by a connected series of Budgets. The nation never had a clearer or graver duty than to strengthen the hands of its Chancellor.” —Aus.N.Z. Cable Assn. PREFERENCE PROVISIONS -' EFFECT ON MIGRATION (Rec. May 3, 5.5 p.m.) London, Ma-. 2. The “Morning Post,” in an editorial discussing the Budget’s provision for preference, says: ‘"When this system is once working, it will make practicable the comprehensive migration within the I Empire for which we have waited so l long. Although the Budget makes no provision for such migration, its every I line shows the necessity for it. for the i new insurance means an added charge [ on an industry already burdened by over a million unemployed.” The article incidentally suggests an immediate modification of the Portuguese 'Treaty to enable Australia and South Africa to label their wines as port.—Aus.-N.Z. Cable Assn. '