POOR MAN’S INCOME TAX.

Hokitika Guardian, 28 April 1932, Page 1

POOR MAN’S INCOME TAX.

(To the Editor). Sir.—ln some respects unemployment ■elief work appears less of a sinecure Jian ever. It was expected, from a previous statement of the Minister’s and from the imposition ( f a quadrupled ‘‘poor man’s income tax. ’ that the financial position of the unemployed would be enhanced. However, the approbriously adjusted relief allowance an be considered typical of the policy of a parsimonious bureaucracy, in e.fect- the government lias outdone all records in is altruistic activity. Pursuing an apparently magnanimous course, aetiiuMy it has obtained a fresh choke-hold on the taxpayer. ! will endeavour to show by two instances just how much the unemployed benefit by the "‘adjusted basis of payment.” Formerly a. single man earned t2 14s for four weeks (if the gods smiled). This munificent amount, being liable to the “Id in 08 or part thereof” scheme shrank to £'2 l.'-js 3d, or represented per week about 13-. Under the revised system, since the man was probably a burden on the local Hospital Board, the single mail is awarded relief for four weeks, perhaps to counteract bis tendency to become an eleemosynary. Thus he receives four weeks pay amounting to L‘3. But there is a catch in it. He must still pay o/ner quarter and it costs him 3/- to draw Id's £3! So that he averages out about 13/9 per week. The obvious question now arises. Why all the wage adjustments, topsy-turvy legislation. and general hocus-pocus for a paltry remunerative oicrease of ninepenee (or thereabouts! per week? Does this rise in salary represent the individual alilocation from the proceeds of a four hundred per cent increase in wage tax? Ananias would wither from an affirmative But perhaps the most ignominious aspect of, the “adjusted wage” is the case of the farm worker. A single man on a farm formerly earned £2 per period of four weeks—theoretically. Aettial!v the amount was 38/- because it cost him 2/- an ( | a yard of red tape to draw it. The omission of anreference to an adjustment of the farm schemes, leads one to suppose that the government is at least temporarily refraining from the offensive in that sphere of its benevolence. More correct would he the supposition that it ' s content with the. egregious ,results, as I shall endeavour to show them, of its inattention. Suppose then, that the single man receives 10/- per week. This is C2 per month. He will receive actually hut 32/ r as the new tax will apply not only to his subsidy hut also to the value of his food and lodging an ( | the few shillings paid him h.v the farmer. Id will not take a mathematician to see that tlio government is (extending its benevolence bv reducing this man’s allowance by (>/- pur four weeks. It is enough (o make apostates <>: those who voted tor the Coalition Party. I am. etc, PANEGYRIST.