Untitled

Hokitika Guardian, 7 May 1924, Page 2

A M.v.ioniTV of the members of the Taxation Committee which sat and reported in 1922 resolved on the subject of company taxation as follows: “We are of opinion that the country should adopt the individual system of taxation, taxing companies on their undivided profits only. It is iceognised that such a change would occasion a considerable loss of revenue, or would iucreaso rates to a limit beyond the taxiloh- capacity of individuals having a moderate income. Nevertheless, we strongly recommend that the change should be 'Contemplated and that the finances of the country should, from now onward, be planned so as to make possible the introduction of this very necessary reform at the earliest date practicable.” The Royal Commission on taxation which sat in Australia two year ago after examining and discussing a proposal to adopt a modification of the New Zealand system of company taxation rejected it unanimously in the following resolution:—“There is ;tio need to traverse the arguments advanced in support‘of the method under discussion. beyond saying that its comparative simplicity and greater productiveness are purchased at the cost of so great a degree of inequity that we have no hesitation in unanimously deciding that it is a method which cannot, he. recoin mended for inclusion in a system ol' taxation which it i.s intended .should rest upon a sound and equitable basis.” As a matter of fact the individual system of taxation is in operation in every part of the British Empire with the single exception of New Zealand.

It will he noticed from the press reports that the Postnnistor-Geiier.i! (Mr Coates) is handling the claims for higher wages from the Postal Department, no less circumspectly than he did a.s Minister of Hail ways the claims from the railwaymen. Higher wages, as Mr Coates points out, is not a cure for the ills wo arc heir to in this ago of cost of higher living. Mr Coates pointed out to the Postal and Telegraph Executive that if the salaries and wages of all employees were brought tip to the standard asked for, the cost of living would increase to such an extent that no one would be better off titan lie is now. The economic tangle of to-day is title largely to the all-round iullatinn of prices which have increased since the war period, whether for commodities or labor. Tlte vast expenditure entailed by die war brought more money into circulation more rapidly, and the excess is still iit use unduly, inflating everything it is necessary to touch. With less money floating about. There would be ti compulsory restriction which would be felt, and in the end, it would make for an economic betterment, lit regard to the ca.se for the Postal ami Telegraphic men. no doubt there are cases, as tile re will lie with the railway-men | where some consideration should be shown. The merits of each can have attention without rumors of strikes or resorting to strikes. It is evident though that the employer—in this case toh State must be master of the situation in fact as in name. No self-re-specting master would lie dictated to by his employees, and least of all should a Minister of the Crown, who does not represent himself, but the people as a wnole. That fact appears to be overlooked. It seems to Ik? suggested that Ministers may rise or drop salaries at their own sweet will. They do so only as tile funds permit, and all the time the people have to find the money. So the Postal folk, like other branches of the public service, must have patience, and n'rnit their turn for increases after the responsible Minister lias reviewed the position and believes the step practicable.