THE TAXING BILL

Hokitika Guardian, 16 September 1927, Page 4

THE TAXING BILL

BROKEN ELECTION PLEDGEE. LONG DEFERRED HOPE.

(Taxpayer). “Less than two years ago tho Government received overwhelming sup- i port upon a programme which placed in the Forefront a promise to reduce taxation. Last year fulfilment of that undertaking was postponed for reasons that convinced no one outside the Cabinet. Mora recently, with a similar Inadequacy of justification, the Minister of Finance declared that conditions do not permit, of reductions in the current year. That was sufficiently disappointing ‘to taxpayers contemplating tho '(contrast between their difficulties in meeting the Government’s demands and the easy in-

difference with which it has extracted huge surpluses and devoted them to purposes beyond tho limits of necessity. What view will they now take of this proposal to make a drastic increase in taxation.-' ’ Those words arc not quoted from an indictment by a political opponent of the Government. They are taken from the editorial fcolnmns of the “New Zealand Herald,” the foremost Reform newspaper, the best informed and the most, influential. The “Herald’ has laid aside mere party preference and prejudice as other leading newspapers have (lone, in an 'effort to turn the Government from a course wlucli, in the present temper of the country, well might prove its undoing and certainly would occasion much dissatisfaction here, and mistrust abroad. It has. wo may bo sure, “nothing extenuated. nor set down aught in malice.” And yet how does this friemll'v mentor of the Government sum up

the situation “’Hie Taxing Bill,” it says, "is a blunder into which the Government could not have fallen had it .not been utterly ignorant of tho difficulties under which taxpayers nrc labouring nn;l utterly insensible to public opinion. What is the Government going to do about the matter? The Minister of Fimumce has promised to give the House and the country further information concerning the Bill during its progress through committee. ffe has hinted at the introdrjrt ion of a Tariff Bill which will return to the community with one hand what he has ‘taken from a section of the community with the other. He has declared that his Jpriticis—all of them friendly and some of them at least, his peers in -the -realm or public finance—ihnVc imisiinderstood his Bill ami misrepresented his intentions. These promises and assertions, though no one doubts the Minister’s g”od faith, are of little consequence. Tho purpose of the Bill is plain enough, a hint at a reduction in customs duties does not lessen tho obnoxious character of the measure, and the charge of misrepresentation is absolutely groundless. There need be no quarrel over the “proper graduation” ol The income tax, which the Taxation Commission recommendtd three years ago, and which the Minister in Ids Budget just the other day, so to speak, mentioned as u necessary start “towards reducing taxation.” This may be a matter for later discussion in which tho Minister’s views ay not, coincide with those (if other competent authorities. The proposed increase oi taxation, by same £500,009 or £t>oo,oC‘?. however, is a grave and urgent matter of which the Minister should have given Parliament and the public ode- 1 ,I unto notice. The “Christchurch: Press,” another prominent Reform; newspaper, puts the case mildly when it says, “it is difficult, to understand the Government, which we have imagined was desirous only of cleaning up •the graduations should have slipped fresh iburdens upon the backs of the taxpayers.” It is well-nigh incredible that tho Minister in “cleaning up the graduations” overlooked tho fact that he was adding largely to the taxpayers’ burdens. But if this really is tho ease, then it still is open to him to make a rebate of say 15 per cent upon tho taxation ho has provided for the current year and to amend Ins scale at his loisure. Otherwise it will l>e the plain duty of Parliament to save the Government from itself and the country from an outrageous' imposition. ——iwaiw