The Hastings Standard Published Daily WEDNESDAY, FEB. 17, 1897. THE TAX ON COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS.

Hastings Standard, Issue 249, 17 February 1897, Page 2

The Hastings Standard Published Daily

WEDNESDAY, FEB. 17, 1897. THE TAX ON COMMERCIAL TRAVELLERS.

For the cause that lacks assistance, For the wrongs that need resistance, For the future in the distance. And the good that we can do.

Ok all the imposts that a Ministry rich in iwpcclk-nts has devised, the tax on commercial traveller-: easily outstrips all others for its asinine tjualities. First of all it is assnmetl that this tax of l'"» 0 which is paid by the itinerant drummer, couius out of the profits of his principal. Such a conclusion is erroneous, unless the commercial traveller failed do any hu i nes.i whatever in tin- colony. When the traveller sells ,"oO'l~\ it may he accepted as a fundamental fact that the tax i-< spread ovcr.tho sold, and -o when the goods pass into the bands of the consumer it is the latter that actually pay- the tax. It works round to this that practically lilt* working class.'- indirectly hear the brunt of the commercial traveller-' tax. -Apart from the economic \n-«' the tax is all objectionable one for It neither confirms t • > reason nor jiliitic«. it i" levied under tho Jncome Tax nt Act, but a lax of a fj\«d r»r arburarv amount cannot be claw<i nut tin income tax. A writer iu tbv Melbourne Argus t*iu

forth the injustice of the impost and says :—"The £-30 levietl by the NewZen land Government has to be paid by the traveller upon his landing in that colony, and the amonnt is retained by the Government whether his journey proves a profitable one or the reverse. Again, a traveller may act for one house only, doing a business of say, ±'looo per annum with New Zealand, or he may represent thirty houses doing a business amounting in the aggregate to £30,000, lr.it the amount of the tax he pays is not in proportion to the business done—in either case he pays £50." It is not *an income tax, but simply a poll-tax on commercial travellers, and what the object of it may be beyond enriching the Treasury is hard to conceive. It is a tax, however, that is irritating because of its inherent injustice, because of its unfriendly and un-British character. To vapour about intercolonial reciprocity with a barbed wire fence round New Zealand is sheer nonsense. ' The tax, however, was designed to protect our merchant traders, or rather to place the foreign houses on an equality with the Home trades in the matter of income tax, and io is a function that it wholly fails to perform. The tax as we have shown is indirectly paid by the consumers, though the Government collects it from the traveller. It might be worth while to consider why commercial travellers visit New Zealand. Obviously they come here to transact business with the merchants, which in itself must be a great convenience and saving to the latter, for if the travellers did not come here then the large importing houses would be put to the expense of having special representatives in the foreign markets to make purchases, or periodic visits to the markets by principals would bo necessary. The drummer actually saves the merchants this expense, beside affording them all the advantages of choosing from samples, and bargaining with freedom. Besides there is always a certain amount of valuable information to be obtained from the travellers as to what is doing in other countries. The merchant needs the traveller, he profits by his visit and to endeavor to keep the drummers out of the colony by an iniquitous poll-tax is surely the essence of stupidity. In the sister colonies this tax is distasteful, and it is not surprising therefore that Mr Seddou should have been approached to remove it, as a test of his sincerity for reciprocity. We may be certain that as the agitation against the tax increases in vigor, the Governments of the other colonies will resort to reprisal and a duty on New Zealand produce would be a powerful set-off. One of the writers in the Argus presents the comic side of the tax on commercials, he says:— " I being an Englishman born and bred, must pay £SO a year to visit New Zealand, whereas a heathen Chinee is only charged one hundred for his lifetime." The tax on travellers is a stupid, unjust, unfriendly and irritating impost and should be remitted as soon as possible.