BRITISH BUDGET

Hokitika Guardian, 13 April 1927, Page 3

BRITISH BUDGET

[Australian A N.Z. Cablo Association.] (Received this day at 11.0 a.m.) LONDON, April 12. A Budge V bite Paper shows the estimated revenue for the current year is 983-1,830,000 and the expenditure 0833,390,000, leaving a surplus of 01, MO,00(1. Opening the budget debate in the Commons, Mr Snowden said within the I riel space of Labour's entry into office ami the presentation ol estimates. a considerable reduction was I effected. Despite Mr Churchill's failure. a hope of economy sprang eternally in his breast. No Chancellor bad ever been a ghastlier failure at achieving anything. The abolition of three Ministories would involve probably a saving ol ten thousand annually. Ministers would disappear, but the work of the departments wotiid be carried on. Did anyone believe the estimates could not be considerably increased before the end ol the year? They erred on the side of optimism. Mr Snowden said he would be greatly surprised if there were not a grave industrial dislocation following the direct invitation from the Trades Union Bill. Apart Irom this, the Chancellor was certain again to face the House with a considerable deficit. fn the course ol three budgets direct taxation had been relieved to an extent of fifty millions, while indirect taxation bad increased by lilty-live millions, thereby showing a regard lor those whom Mr Churchill described as “My bard-pressed friends, the super-taxers.” Mr Churchill was a luxury but: if the Conservatives considered the matter they would find | .scintillating entertainments in the Commons would not compensate his cost to the country. 11 is first budget was a rich man’s, bis second was that of a profligate bankrupt, and bis third was a combination of both, together with jugglery and deceit. “It is beyond me to do justice to M r Churchill’s genius, lie is a combination of Mark Taglov and Micnwber.”

BUDGET RESULTS. LONDON. April 12. While Mr Churchill is being condemned as a financial juggler by the half-hearted opposition, the country generally is more or less philosophically accepting the new burden of taxation. Shorn of Chancellorship verhage. this means that toUic-eo will cost a halfpenny an ounce more, foreign wines a penny u> oiglitpenee per bottle more, matches halfpenny a dozen boxes more, table ware chi tut slightly more. Cigar mmiiifaeLurers are mournful, and say they might as well go out of business. .Motorists, as a class, are the worst hit. Tins road fund reserve of twelve millions is entirely transtcried to re-

venue. A, big motoring association announces it will contest this summary execution, ~md declares material parliamentary support is likely to be I'ortbcoini ng. It is also perturbed at the abolition of the Transport Department. The tax Oil imported motor tyres will increase the cost one third, at which British manufacturers who were recently forced to make big reduction tu meet competition, are jubilant. There is a sharp advance in their shares to-day. MJintime two American manufacturers are hurrying the completion of factories in England.

Everybody is more ol* less agreed that Mr Churchill lias been el>rac>e.iistically ingenious in meeting the disastrous deficit. Indirect taxation though just as bad in the long run. is not so immediaely obvious as increased income tax. Any attempt in that direction would be followed by such an cutc-ry as: would shake the Government. That is mainly why Mr Churchill is being rolerred to as a modern Cinq net) Hi. Mr McNeill said the whole expenditure under control of the government was lot! millions. ‘I he remainder .was either for obligatory services or aross from causes antecedent to the present government. Those who advocated a reduction of anything up to fifty millions should show where it was possible. The abolition of three departments proved the government was not prepared to reject any reasonable suggestion. Mr Sutcliffe regretted the overseas trade department was ending. It had assisted in the development of trade. Mr Godlrcv Collins called the ( liaueellor’s attention to four methods of reducing expenditure. The cost of colonial pie fere i ice for the year was four and a-hnif millions. Why should the over-burdened taxpayers assist successful producers In the Dominions. They might abolish the beet sugar subsidy. that would save another four millions. Then there was the Empire Marketing Board. Why should a million of the taxpayers' money be spent to bring products ol overseas dominions to our shores? The dominions should compete m our markets on equal terms with the peoples ol the world.