Country Party Leader’s Charge Against Chifley Budget

Grey River Argus, 23 September 1948, Page 8

Country Party Leader’s Charge Against Chifley Budget

CANBERRA, September 22

The Country Party Leader, Mr. A. W. Fadden, in the House of Representatives, charged that the Prime Minister, Mr. J. B. Chifley, had faked his Budget figures to conceal a revenue surplus, wnich had reached £13,000,000 monthly. He characterised the. Budget as a “dishonest and extraordinary document, conservative and prodigal, deflationary as well as inflationery.” ’Mr. Fadden said the Treasurer’s consolidated revenue statements for July and August, 1948, followed the pattern for the concealment of Federal revenue surpluses adopted in the previous financial year. The expenditure for defence and post-war charges for these months was shown as £42,900,000. That amount was not, in fact, spent, as the loan expenditure for the same time showed a credit of £26,800,000. Thus only £16,100,000 was spent in the two months on defence.

In the final analysis, the Treasurer finished those two months with a revenue surplus of about £27,000,000. With every increase in wages there was an increase in direct and indirect taxes.

“1 have definitely proved that every shilling rise in the basic wage gives the Treasurer £1,000,000 more revenue,” he said. “Hundreds of thousands of Australians have to do without another £1,000,000 worth of extra food and clothing. In other words, another bob in the pay envelope and you’re gone a million to Mr. Chifley.” RECORD TAXATION.

Mr. Fadden said Mr. Chifley was the “outstanding record breaker” from the imposition of Federal income tax, from 1915-16 to 1940-41, the total collections from that source amounted to £310,000,000. Mr. Chifley had dwarfed that figure by collecting £1,237,000,000 in income tax and contributions, or £1,061,000,000 if the tax reimbursements to the States were deducted. , , Since 1941 Mr. Chifley had collected £2,231,000,000 in taxation of all kinds. In the previous 41 years all previous Federal Treasurers had collected £1,622,000,000. He had achieved this startling record by exacting thirty per cent, of the national income. . . . Taxes were continuing at heavy 1 ax rates far beyond a reasonable period. Mr. Fadden said. Despite the claim that income tax had been reduced by £64,000,000 yearly, Mr. Chiflev was now imposing heavier taxation than in the war years.