WELLINGTON TOPICS

Hokitika Guardian, 17 August 1927, Page 4

WELLINGTON TOPICS

THE CANDID FRIEND

SPEAKS HIS MIND

(Special to “ Guardian ”.) WELLINGTON, Aug. 15. Taking advantage of the measure of independence ho acquired last session In- daring to differ from the Prime Minister in regard to the motor bus regulations. Mr A. Harris, the diffident member for Waitcmnta. in his contribution to the financial debate at the week-end assumed quite frankly the role of the candid friend. He was not quite so brutal as Mr Glenn, the member for Rangitikci. probably Would have been in similar circumstances, but be made it abundantly clear that ho did not approve* of several of the Government's financial methods, and strongly disapproved of the persistent pessimism of some of the occupants of the Treasury benches and their more docile followers. Trade depression, ho declared, was a result of high taxation and would have been greatly lessened by a “Md reduction” of the people's burdens in this direction. The Government was pledged to a policy of this kind and yet it had done nothing during the last two sessions. It

Wits lacking in courage and initiation and taking freight at every bogey set up in its path. Pessimism wits the besetting sin of Ihe politicians of the day. and it was at, the root of most of the country’s troubles. i A COMPARISON. The 11 Evening Post” in its editorial columns cordially endorses the appreciation of Sir .Joseph Ward's Budget speech expressed in these columns last week. "Sir Joseph Ward's criticism of the public debt procedure. State banking ideas and other subjects.” it says ‘‘may not be generally acceptable; but it cannot be denied that it. was based upon something more than a cursory examination of the issues dealt with. H was criticism meriting a reply and lending to the elucidation ot important points in finance policy. 1 ho majority of other members, however, have, avoided the issues of moment:, and talked at large. It is not harsh criticism to say that many of the speeches had so little reference to 1 lie Budget that they could have been prfpared before the Budget was delivered. Some of them may have* been. Such speeches are neither helpful nor excusable. They show that the present ITou.se is lamentably lacking in constructive financial criticism, and that the Budget Debate is largely a waste of time.' Comparisons are not necessarily odious and in this particular instance tin* constituencies have a right to demand that their representatives in Parliament shall take sonic pains fe acquire at least a nodding acquaintance with the finances of tho counlrv. INCOME TAX. Probably tho most impressive table attached to the Budget presented to the House this session is the one comparing the income tax paid in New Zealand with the income taxes paid in the Australian States. This table has been eagerly seized upon by the friends < f the Government as an adequate reputation of the eon ten I ion of “interested people” that the income tax in tile Dominion pressed more heavily noon enterprise and industry than did the income taxes of the Commonwealth. I lie figures were plausible enough. They showed that a. taxpayer in New Zealand receiving £4OO a year paid only £2 12s fid, while a taxpayer in Victoria paid £3 17s fid, j„ Xew South Wales £5 Ss ltd and s> on until South Australia was reached with £S 2s lit!. But. the 'ompiler of the j figures lias chosen to ignore the fact that over t>o per cent, of the income tax collected in New Zealand is obtained from companies, which, if they earn over £8,700 a year, as the great majority of such institutions do. pay at the rate of 4s Rd in the £, before the\ proceed to distribute dividends to their shareholders This mehns that the small investors, of whom there are many thousands, instead of paying at the rate of three half-pence in tho pound, up to £4OO, as represented by flic official table, pay 4s fid in tbe £ on every penny they receive from their investments. Tliat is the catch in tbe Minister’s figures. HALF-TRUTHS. Here again tbo “Post” protests against the superficial character of the Budget. “On several points,’’ it protests, “it failed to give the amount of information that could be desired. For i

pit?, me position o 1 run us lor cap!tal expenditure is stated cursorit.v. Tlio of Finance states that he relied upon the local loan market to make good the sum required for public works, and ho suggests a fear that this reliance may have been misplaced ; hut ho does not indicate what effect this may have .upon the public works programme. Similarly his references to reform in the incidence of taxation avoid an exact statement of the difficulties to he encounered in a change from the company to the individual basis. It is stated that such a change would cost £1,000.000 per annum; hut there is no reference whatever to the methods proposer] by tho Taxation Commission for making good such a loss.” The reiteration of the statement that tho change from company taxation to individual taxation would necessitate a loss of revenue, is quite inexcusable. Tho Commission, as the “Post” implies, indicated quite, clearly how tho transition stage could ho bridged without any loss to tlic Treasury, and the raising of this objection now savours rather of official obstinacy than of ministerial insight.