"ARTFUL DODGERS"

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Volume 81, Issue 18, 14 October 1937, Page 4

"ARTFUL DODGERS"

Supporters of the Government will find but very cold comfort in an mtelligent study of the replies given by its spokesmen to the strictures pasSed by Opposition speakers upon its taxation proposals. Tbe r'eal question at issue, and the oue that is consistently dodged by them all, is why during their short two years of office taxation has gone up by ^g-million a year, or about £ 6 per head of the population, while in their election campaign they had definitely promised that it would not be increased and had inferentially indicated that it would be reduced. Practically the only answer offered is to point to some improvements in social services and humanitarian measures, pensions and the like, which, in any event, fall far short of accounting for the increase in taxation. Apart from that, however it seems to be entirely overlooked that, according to Labour's election manifesto, all these good things were to be accomplished without taxation being increased — that was indeed the real essence of the attractiveness of Labour's so gaudily bedecked platform. By some mysterious financial juggling all these benehts were to be conferred on the people without their being called upon to put their hands in their own pockets to pay for them. Seemingly this star act of financial legerdemain has failed to come off and the rabbit has not come out of the hat. Hence the age-old recourse of taxing the people to the extent of an extra ^g-million in order to make fine good fellows of Mr Savage, a real political Robin Hood, and his merry men. The people, all taxpayers in one form or another, will h^ve some difficulty in seeing in this time-worn device any revelation of the new statesmanship and the new financial policy that were to revolutionise the country. Then, let us look at the specific arguments adduced by Labour spokesmen. A favourite trick is to cite what Labour professes to regard as the shortcomings and misdoings of past Governments as if the present Opposition was responsible for them all. First we have Mr Lee, him in charge of the housing scheme, which many are convinced is being carried Out on extravagant and altogether uneconomic lines and for the benefit of only the high-paid workmen. He points the finger of condemnation at the piling up of the public debt in the past. It does not seem to occur to him that some £6omillioh of that debt was incurred for the building of the railWays with which his colleague, Mr Sullivan, is making such great play and to which his othet colleague, Mr Semple, is making extensive additions with borrowed money to be placed on top of the pile of which Mr Lee so loudly complains. And it was with borrowed money that was established the bydro^election system, bestowing countless real benefits on the people. Then, Mr Nash in his Budget proposes spending some ^"iy^-million on public works. How much of this is to be raised by loans ? That is one of the many pertinent questions he declines to answer. Much is made of the fact that this Government is set on raismg all its loans internally, as if that meant that it did not matter much. But it is easy enough for those who think at.all to see that with the Government thus mopping up great sums of internal capital for non-productive or doubtfully productive uadertakings, so much the less is left for proraoting and fostering the industries which alone spell prosperity to the country and steady employment for the wage-earners. Then, again, we have Mr Lyon, of Waitemata, telling us that "the Government is not so much concerned with prosperity in the aggregate as with the prosperity of the individual." This is surely a queer economic thesis, since the great majority of individuals can at best only share in the general prosperity. It was, of course, to the Minister of Finance that we were entitled to look for some enlightenment, but he gives us very little, if indeed any. His incidental spar with Mr Coates on the relative weight of taxation in this and in other countries cpunts for very little, for circumstances and conditions vary so much that comparisons on per-capita averages are almost negligible, though favourite play things with politicians. On big things that really matter Mr Nash is altogether vague and entirely unsatisfactory. He says that "if a slump comes the Government will extend the production of goods that can be produced in New Zealand." Why wait till the slump comes? That sort of thing is not to be done overnight and slumps have a nasty way of coming without much warning. Then, again, the Minister says that "if oversea prices for our export products fall, then the Government will 'isolate the country* against these outside influences." This certainly adds another pretty and soothing phrase to the Labour vocabulary, but what does it really mean? And, if we are to be'isolated or insulated: — or any other cognate word— - from these influences, why did Mr. Nash himself spend ten months of his own valuable time and a good few thousands of the peopie's ill-spared money in trying, though without much success, to cultivate closer trade associations with the countries where these influences are located? Is there any more in all this talk than just "guff," a word that may not be found in the Oxford Dictionary but which everyone pretty well understands ?