Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

FARMERS’ PROTECTIONISM.

(From the Daily Tunes, 27th August.) Amongst the minor debates resulting ia nothing in the House of Representatives, was one on a motion by Mr Reid for a return showing the amount of revenue collected since the Customs Tariff came into operation on “ bags and bagging, timber, sawn or split, fencing wire, straining posts and apparatus.” The motion evidently was in favor of a special class, and Mr Reid atUmpted to prove that the duties on the items named bore heavily upon their interests. This is one of the complaints that might be made by many other classes besides the one indicated, of the unequal bearing of the Tariff; but if any have to complain of the special incidence of high duties, it is those who, generally speaking, find but few to speak on their behalf —those who live by labor. The fact was recognised fully by Mr J. C. Richmond when he showed that “ a Customs Revenue, of necessity and from its very nature, was drawn more largely than is equitable from the poorer classes of the community.” Nothing is more evident, in the discussions that take place from time to time in Parliament and bv the Press, than that, as a rule, the question of taxation is little understood, and that all tariffs should be formed with special reference to a given purpose, “ The first object of every tariff,” Mr Richmond observed, “ is to get revenue, not to mete out justice.” In this a plain, unvarnished truth was spoken. Other persons might have ulterior objects. They might seek to protect this trade or that, to foster a

special industry, or to discourage certain importations ; but the object of the Government is to secure revenue. It cannot, however, be denied that in fiscal arrangements to that endJPcare must be taken to leave a margin for the utmost noasible extension of industry. It is not altogether a matter of indifference how the duties are levied, for the bearing may be so heavy upon special trad -s as seriously to interfere with their development. If, for instance, too high a duty is levied upon goods that enter into the prosecution of any trade or manufacture, the means of carrying on the operations connected with it are curtailed, by so much as the capital otherwise available for the employment of labor is reduced. Such a policy would defeat the end proposed by levying tire duty. The purpose of the duty is to raise a revenue ; but if it be so high as to prevent the employment of a given number of laborers who would otherwise have been engaged, so far from its proving an advantage to the revenue, it is a drawback to its productiveness. Duty on capital invested can only be levied once ; but laborers are constant consumers. Their contributions to the revenue are not intermittent, but persistent. As they consume they contribute, and that in very large proportion to the amount of wages they receive.

As a principle, revenue derived f'om duties on capital invested, is drawn from a wrong source. A tax on capital is neither just nor expedient. There is scarcely one maxim in taxation more generally accepted, than the equity of taxing revenue solely. It is the part of wisdom in every community to afford every facility to the introduction and investment of capital; but to tax it in any form is to discourage investment. It has always, therefore, been considered unwise to tax the tools with which a workman performs his work, or the material he employs. Exceptions to this rule, no doubt, are frequent, particularly where taxtiou is adopted for other purposes than those of revenue. But Mr Beid did not claim exemption from duty on that ground. He based his argument on the specialty of the industry he ailirmed to be affected by the duties. He pointed out that agriculturists had to pay such exhorbitant taxes that they could not prosper so long as some of these imposts were continued. If that be true, it is not the less true that those taxes do not affect them alone. If they bear heavily upon the agriculturists, they bear equally upon all capital invested involving the consumption of those specific articles. But they are not the only class who feel the incidence of an ill considered Tariff. Every carpenter, every smith, every artizan whose tools are raised in price by the imposition of an import duty, has equal cause to complain with the agriculturists ; and it would be well if the inhabitants of the Colony were sufficiently advanced as to devise some more equitable mode of raising a revenue than by Customs Duties M r Travers truly said that articles which yielded the largest revenue were consumed principally by the poorer classes. In fact, it is the universality of their consumption, and their not being produced in the Colony, that renders the revenue from those articles productive. The revenue derived from spirits, tobacco, ale, tea coffee, and sugar for 18155 l!G amounted to £7d4,0d0, and from ad those articles to £IIU,UOO. It is evident tlieu that, since consumption per head is pretty nearly the same of articles of every day necessity, in the household of the poor as in the household or the rich, the poorer classes pay not only in proportion to their income, but actually very muclt the larger portion of the Customs Revenue ; and it has the unpleasant i eculiarify, that while the earnings of artisans arc pretty much alike, those who have the largest number of persons dependent upon them, necessarilly pay the largest amount of taxes. Under the present system of finance, such a result is unavoidable. It is only because Otago is, generally, in a prosperous condition, that the heavy taxation is not more severelyfelt. But though the presure falls comparatively lightly upon the well paid artizans here, some of the Provinces are not so fortunately situated. The diminishing revenue of the North Island is significant, that the Customs duties are already as heavy as can be borne there. Heavy •duties interfere with settlement, anc discourage immigration. They thus tend to diminish rather than increase the revenue, for the larger the population the greater would be the amount of taxes paid, even were the duties more moderate than at present.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/HBT18670926.2.13

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume XII, Issue 512, 26 September 1867, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
1,052

FARMERS’ PROTECTIONISM. Hawke's Bay Times, Volume XII, Issue 512, 26 September 1867, Page 2

FARMERS’ PROTECTIONISM. Hawke's Bay Times, Volume XII, Issue 512, 26 September 1867, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert