THE Hawke's Bay Times. NAPIER, WEDNESDAY, 25th JANUARY, 1865.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume V, Issue 218, 25 January 1865, Page 2

THE Hawke's Bay Times. NAPIER, WEDNESDAY, 25th JANUARY, 1865.

Taxation in some form must on all hands be admitted as a necessity of civilisation, as a means of providing for Government, for the execution of laws made for the conservation of the State, and the maintenance of social order. The question, however, remains as to the best way of levying taxes; or what is that system which, while it raises from the people of a State sufficient means for their good government, does this in the most equal and unoppressive manner ? We have recently seen the most absurd article that we think has ever come under our observation on this subject, the writer of which strives hard to prove that all taxes should be raised from the poorer or laboring classes of society, and that it is decidedly and evidently for their benefit that this should be the case—that it is the duty of legislators to avoid by every means imposing a tax upon capital, lest they should drive away or keep away capitalists, and so injure or ruin the poor or laboring class by depriving them of the means of employment. Certainly we have no wish to misrepresent views that do not tally with our own, and as certainly none to use any misrepresenta-

tion as a means of more readily overthrowing arguments that may be advanced by an opponent But we have carefully read the article in question, and can only conclude that if anything is meant by it, this is what it means.

Well aware as we are that the journal to which we allude is published in the interest of and mainly supported by the squatocracy, and those whose incomes would be more severely touched by the adoption of a system of direct taxation such as we have advocated on former occasions, we can assure the writer of such articles as that above referred to that such arguments will only injure, by exposing an already very bad cause. Our readers will readily see that we always make a distinction between two subjects, which are too apt to be confounded, especially by the other party. In the first place, we have argued that there was no need of additional taxation at this time, that the tariff was already too high, and that by a judicious system of retrenchment, greatly needed, by cutting away many of the expensive, useless, and even mischievous offices—offices which afford so many channels for the waste of public money, our legislators would have shown themselves worthy of the times, and able to cope with the difficulties of the State. In support of this view, we have shown that New Zealand is much more heavily taxed in proportion to its population than the mother country (according to some authorities fully 50 per cent.), that it is perhaps the most heavily burdened of the colonies, and it is only reasonable to suppose that it is this consideration, and not the means employed to raise taxes, that will act most effectually in keeping capitalists from our shores.

But on the other hand, if the reduction of expenditure was a work of too great difficulty for the ability of our new govern-ment—-if they were frightened at the magnitude of the task, or dreaded the outcry to be expected from those who think they have a right to absorb the vitality of the colony merely because they have been placed in office by a corrupt government or mistaken policy—if they (the government) saw no resource but to meet their too excessive expenditure by additional taxation, they should at least have exercised some little inventive ingenuity and imposed a tax, if such were needed, on those who can well afford to pay it, who draw from the colony itself enormous streams of wealth year by year, while they are more than any others exempted from contributing to its revenue a tax somewhat in proportion to the benefit they derive from the country, and not by an oppressive and unequal addition to the tariff further grind down the already over-taxed working classes. Time was when from the ignorance of the masses, and their unquestioning or rather unreasoning submission to their governors the indirect system of taxation was the ruling one, because it was easily seen by legislators that by its means the taxpayers were kept in ignorance of the sum they paid to the revenue. But of late years this has not been the case. This as well as other branches of knowledge has been opened up to the general public, and the whole system has been condemned by the vox populi, so much so, that all changes now made in the practice of enlightened communities tend from the wouldbe secret and costly system of indirect to the open and economical one of direct taxation.

Why does the Government of New Zealand lag behind the rest of the world ? Why, when other colonies, are endeavouring to lighten the burdens - placed on such articles as sugar and tea, ours should add to those burdens, and avoid what the example of the Home Government has shown to be a more excellent way ? It would be hard to answer these questions, if we did not know that the ruling class in the colony is composed of those who would most feel the introduction of such a change, and therefore will, as long as they find it possible to do so, stave oft' the evil day. ■ -