INDIRECT TAXATION.

Evening Star, Issue 2934, 15 July 1872, Page 2

INDIRECT TAXATION.

To the. Editor.

Sir, —I believe there never was a fairer opportunity presented to the Statesmen and the public writers of New Zealand, for achieving an honorable distinction and the lasting gratitude of their fellow colonists, than presents itself in pointing out the unfairness of our Ilscaj layys >yitU a view tp tljeir alteration. That these laws operate unfairly, pressing proportionally far heavier on the working-classes above them, is a fact capable of the clearest demonstration. If that be so, we have the anomaly of “privileged orders ” under a democratic regime nearly as wc 1 l defined as the “privileged Orders” in France previous to the first revolution in that country. It was held by the democratic party in the States General, and

lias been held by many before and since their day, that to exempt the nobility and clergy from taxation was a gross injustice. This condemnation of a particular instance of taxation proceeds rora the general axiom that taxation should press equally on all; and if from that axiom there is to be any departure, it should be in a direction favorable to the working-class. Let us inquire if the taxation of New Zealand agrees with that axiom —inquire in faot if we have no privileged orders.

In addressing myself to this subject, I do not hope to do more than submit one or two ideas for consideration. Its full development lies not only far beyond the compass of my opportunity, but beyond that of my ability. Nevertheless, I think enough may be said in a short space to suggest to workingmen their interest in the subject. In a case which was lately before a Supreme Court in the Colony it came out in evidence that a shopkeeper, whose stock was valued at between L 2,000 and L 3,000 was in receipt of an income therefrom of about LBOO per annum. It so happened that this man was unmarried, and able, of course, to live at considerably less expense than ho would have been if he had been a man with a family. From an incident in our method of taxation, as I shall show presently, so far as contributing to the revenue is concerned, that man belongs to a privileged order. As distinguished from this man and men of his class, let us take the case of a laborer or tradesman with a family, earning from LIOO to L 159 a year. Will any one { retend that it would be justice in the Legis* atirre to call on these two men to contribute equal sums for the purposes of Government ? And if it can be shown that for every shilling contributed to the revenue by the shopkeeper of my illustration the working man contributes two, the injustice of our present system will bo patent to all men. For all practical purposes, it is true what I say when I assert that the only contributions these men make to the revenue is through the Custom House. Now let tis see how the Custom House touches them in their ordinary course of life ; and as nearly everything we eat, drink, or wear that comes from beyond the sea is taxed, to note their expenditure in the shops where these articles are sold will be to find out how it does touch them. In the drapers’ and boot shops, where the revenue has been collected by bulk, a twelvemonth’s purchases of the working-man will at least have contributed double, possibly nearer four times, that of the shopkeeper to the Colonial Treasury. In the gf. cers’ a similar inequality will be found. The inference that the working-man is treated with gross unfairness is inevitable. It will be objected that in the illustration I have chosen extreme oases. That I have done so is quite true: I have pointed out the dark shades at the extremity of an injustice to make the injustice itself in all its intermediate shades more apparent. I invite the attention of working-men with families to the following list of articles of daily and large consumption amongst themselves. The list is an ordinary Saturday night’s purchase :

10 1 ... 3 0 That is to say, that in the purchase of a few articles, on every one of which a vast majority of the working classes look as necessaries, Government demands an impost of 30 per cent., or about 3£d on the shilling; and if we allow the purchaser to indulge in the cheap luxury of a bottle of whisky, the duty on these purchases will have swelled to the enormous rate of 45 per cent., or mors than s|d on the shilling. It requires no prophet to tell us what the effest would bs if these duties were attempted to be collected directly.from the consumers. From the North Cape to the Bluff there would be a cry of discontent, calling for a revision of the tariff, which, if not given effect to, would quickly take the tone of a menace, that would make the boldest of our statesmen tremble. Let us follow the working man from the grocers into the drapers and see what the legislature has done for him there. With the duty on moleskins and some other goods at 3s per cubic foot ; on cotton goods, ordinary clothing, and boots, at ss; on hosieiy, at Gs, when be has purchased a parcel the size of a candle box, he has contributed to the revenue in all probability not less t iau ss. In the ironmongers and crockery shops it will be found that Government has been equally attentive to taxation on the articles of ordinary domestic use. Now it will be urged by the supporters of the “whatever is, is right” ideas, that those taxes fall equally on all. In one sense this is quite true, in another it is as false as the system is iniquitous. Anyone who will give live minutes consideration to thg income and waya of outlay of a working man with a family, will find that three-fourths of that income is bound to be operated on by those cruel imposts of the Government, and he may also find that there are hundreds amongst the wealthier classes with far more both of right and ability to bear taxation, three-fourths of whose incomes escape it altogether. That is the fact to bear in mind—if three-fourths of one man’s income is taxed and only one-fourth of his neigh: bor’s, the injustice is palpable. Al| this points at taxation on property, and incomes for the equalisation of state burdens. Working men, however, may rest assured that if our burdens are to be equalised, the initiative must oome fiom themselvejp. To expect our legislature to impose an income tax without outward pressure, is as preposterous as to expect our Provincial Conn: cil voluntarily to suggest an ad valorem duty on ploughshares, or a tax on sheep. — I am, &c., A. N.

Duty free. Duty. 8. d. 8. d. 1 lb tea ... 2 6 ... 0 6 1 lb coffee ... ... 1 1 ... 0 3 C Iba sugar... ... 2 0 ... 0 6 1 lb candies ... 0 11 ... 0 1 gall, kerosene ... 1 9 ... 0 3 4 lb tobacco ... 1 2 ... 1 3 2 lbs currents ... 0 8 ... 0 2