FREEZING COMPANY SUBSIDY

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Volume 81, Issue 16, 12 October 1937, Page 3

FREEZING COMPANY SUBSIDY

t ' CHEERFUL TAXPAYER,"

Sir, — Your correspopdent "Ajax"

hastens to explain why the freezing company I referred to received £1000 subsidy, and points out, to substantiate his case, that Hansard is not an authoritative source, overlooking the obvious fact^that any xecord in Hansard is a record of statements mad© publicly in the House with the inevitable consequence of any incorrect statements being challenged by one of the 80-odd members present. However, as he has a penchant for authentic information, X have gone to the trouble to procure the Invesfcnent Review, Yol. I. No. 10, March 15, 1934, and he will on page 14 find tabulated a very comprehensive array of figures for the years 1930 to 1933 concerning this company. X will for brevity, however, only quote th© following table: — 1930 1931 1932 1933 £ £ £ £ Nett Profit 11,394 14,363 14,522 51,085 Dividend 11 p.c. 12 p.c. 12 p.c.381 p.o. Keserve3 129,028 159,765 160,661 188,031 Now, Sir, I submit it is not my business how, wlien, where or why this company paid a special bonus of 25 per cent. plus 13£ per cent. dividend and £20,000 to building reserve, but it is my duty and privilege to ask what justification had a company in such circumstances, for taking even the £1000 mentioned by "Ajax" from the Unemployment Fund, oh any pretext whatever, and incidentally, I presume this company, along with others, took advantage of the Government 's ^decision to cut all wages by 20 per cent. (also 1/per pound tax). The editor of the Review states: ''The latest year shows an unexplained increase of . . . This meiits some explanation . . . but no explanation is given in the report for this sudden access of profit." Probably the editor was not able to understand so prosperous a slump. Sir, "Taxpayer" refers to my "lengthy, if rambling, letter." X should, I suppose, apologise and explain that I am only a sojourner through life, 1 both in the practical and literary sense, so he must excuse me. Incidentally, I intend to say good-bye to New Zealand if the present Opposition become the : Government again, as I daren't take the risk of losing what little I have left from 1931 onward. On the other hand, if Labour, after introducing national health and superannuation schemes, is returned to the Government Benches, I shall think it too good a place to leave. Referring again to "Taxpayer," could he give me anv authentic data to prove that taxation in New Zealand is heavier, in terms of sterling, than in Britain or (if he prefers) the rate of taxation per pound of income earned irrespective of currency values. I am.not so biased as to Tefus© the evidence of aceurate figures, but I have seen nothing very drastic published yet to prove Labour a spendthrift Government except, of course, ridiculous ! figures such as given by "Bill Bow- ; yang," who endeavours to convey that the increase in debt was only round about £5 million in a decade. Finally, Mr. Editor, I wish to thank you for publishing my previous lengthy and somewhat Taittbling letter. — Yours, etc.,

Hastings, Oct. 9, 1937.