RELIEF FENDS

Hokitika Guardian, 23 May 1932, Page 8

RELIEF FENDS

AN IMPORTANT STATEMENT

DETAILS OF UNEMPLOYMENT

BOARD’S FINANCES

An important statement was made by the Deputy Chairman of the Unemployment Board, Mr J. S. Jessep, regarding the finances of the board, while addressing a meeting which was called by the Wellington branch of the Town Planning Institute to discuss means tor a district scheme of relief and development works. The reasons why the shilling in the pound tax had not increased the board’s finances fourfold were explained by Mr Jessep. He expressed the appreciation of the Unemployment Board of efforts made by the Town Planning Institute and those associated with it in the preparation of the report made, but ■said ithiat ithie suggestion ' chat the subsidy from the board, .now applying only to wages, should be extended to cover at' least part of the cost of supervision and materials warranting the opinion that there had not been a full realisation of the amount of 'the funds available to the board or of the calls upon the board for its funds.

DANGER OF FURTHER TAXATION

“I want to emphasise,” he said, *‘‘that the funds that are going to those "ho are' unlucky enough' to be out of work are being drawn' obviously from those who are lucky enough to to still in employment, and front no other source, and as you narrow” the gap between those in employment and those who are out of employment so you i'urtdhiatically reduce the funds available. There are many traders, shopkeepers, and small farmers who ni’o very nearly on the border, and if through extra taxation we pu'i'h the..; over the border line, then we shall have, not an increased, but a decreased revenue.’!

Many small shopkeepers, tradesmen, and farmers were in no better position, than married men on relief works, ho added; in fact, when it was remem bered that men who were not on le lief works had now to pay. Is in ihe on their wages, 'whereas those on relief work were paying only the 10/oy, the margin bet ween the two was exceedingly narrow. •''The constant agitation by extremists might easily result in alienating the sympathy of the struggling farmer, tradesmen, and shopkeepers,’’ said Mr Jessup. “Ninety-five P er . cent, of the unemployed are our ordinary level-head-ed fellow citizens who have fallen on evil days, the remaining 5 per cent, are taking advantage of the distre-r. to cause turmoil and strife and make the whole position, both to those on relief and those who are supplying the relief, worse than it is to-day. The board’s constant endeavour is to seek to get industry re-estubli-hed. II would lie "impossible* to do ’this if the measure of relief became such that ii verged upon the position at which we might expect industry to commence t< ■function.”

THE NEW TAX. ‘T would 1 ike very briefly to set out for you some of the salient points ii. respect of the board's financial po-'i-tion,” he continued. "The income oi the board at the end of the financial year just ended was on a basis oi approximately £2,600,000. This was made up as follows:—£400,000 from the levy, and £900,000 from the tax on salary and wages. Both these figure; are approximate, and cover a full year'.operations, and make a total of £l,300,000. in addition to that income, the expenditure' from the board's hint: was subsidised £ for £ from flip Consolidated Fund, making the total income just mentioned of £2,600,C0

A very erroneous impress l on ' has gained wide credence with the public that the incren.se in the wages tax from 8d to Is in fcho £ means that the board’s income has been quadrupled. That suggestion is very wide of the mark indeed. In addition to the loss of the subsidy from the Consolidated Fund, which .not only doubled the income from the wages' tax when it was at 3d, but also doubled the income from the levy, there is a very serious loss owing to the fall in income.' generally •‘'Although for a portion of last year the 3d in the £ tax on wages'and income produced at tho ra/| t > of £900,>9OO per year, it is patent to everyone that the Is wi'l not produce four times that, amount.,Thousands of oTir citizens contributed heavily last year on the basis of their previous year's income. This year they will not he called upon to pay as much, although the basis is so much higher. The estimate for this year, prepared by the same people who so accurately estimated the income 1•• st year, is that the total income of t ■■f* hoard vvil 1 net exceed from £3,500, 000 to £3,750.000.

ESTIMATE FOR THE VKAfi, "If the full amount of thO estimate . realised, say, £3.750,000 for the v:‘.at it menus a weekly income to ( he board of £72,000, and I lie total number registered, plus those who are iceeiving assistance from the board, but have been taken from the register, totals 58,475 as at 3rd May. OI this number, 48,601 were dependeiil for • heir relief under what is known as •Memie Xu. 5. The comm it men i outside Scheme* No. 5, including farm |, vel.qiment. Work, drainage work, gold mining, and subsidising of industiv in an attempt to provide mo ■ >. m employment, is estimated to cost *he hoard in a fu'.l year £1.060,i'00. •‘H will be ieaihed by you tientlgnien

here that many of these works which are being carried cut in the country ol a developmental character, whilst much more advantageous from the country’s and the workers’ points of view, are more expensive to the board than Scheme No. 5. If the £1,000,000 as suggested is a near estimate of the cost outside of Scheme No. 5, it- leaves only an income of £52,770 per week for the purpose of carrying on Scheme No. 5 at the present' figures.

One Has only to < compare, these two figure)-; £52,000 and 48,000 unemployed —to realise ■ the difficulties that the board has to overcome, particularly when demands are made on the.' board such as are being made at the present time by the relief workers in the Wellington district. It has already been pointed out that the demands, if applied! to the the unemployed in the Dominion,—would cost approximately £5,500,000.

INCREASED DEMANDS AND TAXATION.

“It is an important point which is continually asked as to what is a fair thing to pay a relief worker in the nvay of wages; but it is also an important question Row much nioi’e in the why of taxation can the. pnb.it stand without precipitating absolute ruin. If ail the advocates for inc-rea? •ad expenditure, increases in allocations, and increases in wages to relief work, eus' would simultaneously admit the additional expenditure and advocate a proportionate increase in the taxation, it would be much easier to deal w’-fh as far as the board is concerned. Ou>position is that a fund is created, and. as I have pointed out, the maximum amount in that fund will be approximately £3.500,000. We can only distribute that amount in the. mm equitable fashion, and at the. same time in such a way .as to em'ure that some proportion of it can come back again to the country in the way of increased production.” “I • reiterate,” said Mr Jessep. ‘‘that when responsible people insist that allocations must be increased and relief extended to within measurable d’V'tauce of that earned ill ordinary industry, then such responsible persons must understand quite clearly that they are. in effect; asking that the present unemployment tax of Is in the pound h increased. There is a point beyond which taxation cannot go, the source of 'supply must inevitably be dried up.”