DIRECT TAXATION AND FAIR PLAY FOR LABOR.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume III, Issue 57, 9 March 1868, Page 3

DIRECT TAXATION AND FAIR PLAY FOR LABOR.

I To thb Editor of tbe Nelson Evening Mail. ■J Sir-— The unjust customs duties that I every right thinking man must condetnu, I besides taking so much directly from the \ forking classes, also aggravate the evil of i *tbe extravagant expenditure, from Which ! the colouy is suffering, inasmuch as these duties, so levied, supply our legislators with a revenue, to which they conI tribute but a very small share themselves. I It is other men's money they have beeu for so long past spending, and not tbeir ! own. They have been multiplying officials, raisiug salaries, "giving sops, and indulging ih grandeur and greatness, not at their own expense, but at the expense ofthe laboring classes ; and to prove that this is no exaggeration, just for one moment reflect that averaging the number in a family at four, the often quoted sum of six pounds per head per annum df taxation on man, woman, and child in New Zealand, amounts to £24 per family, aud mark — from the unjust manner in which the duties are levied on the necessaries of life, (a cotton dress paying as much duty as a silk or velvet one,'and a pair of moleskin trousers paying as much duty as a pair made of the best broadcloth,) the man earning six shillings a day only has to find this yearly sum of twenty-four pounds, for the taxgatherer, just as dees the judge with his thousand pounds per annum ; or the ruuholder, or merchant, with their five or t6n thousand per anuum. Now these twenty-four pounds per annum on six shillings per day, is 'over twenty-five per cent, on the laborer's wages, whereas twenty-four pounds per anuum on the judge's thousand is 'duly two and a half per cent., and ou the five and ten thousand pounds per annum income of the ruuholder and merchant, it is only ten shillings and five shillings per cent, respectively. Therefore it is clear our legislature have been spending lavishly and indulging in extravagance, at ths ' expense of other people, and not at their own expense. But if the reveuue was raised, as it should be, by direct taxation on property and income, the powerful argument of the breeches pocket, which such a source of revenue would briug to bear ou Mr. Stafford, aud squanderers like him, would render it quite unnecessary for any one to inform him 'in what department of the public service retrenchment'should be made.' Aiid I would ask, is there anything to be found in Provincial institutions to compare in grossness and badness with the fact of the General Government compelling the workiugman to contribute twenty-five pounds per cent, of his earnings to the State, aud the classes above him a continually diminishing per centage, as they rise in wealth and affluence, until the rich runhoider or merchant only pays his ten shillings or five shillings per cent, out of his income ? Do auy of the provinces acknowledge any such unjust principle as this ? Do they levy their road rates, and their sewer . fates, and their water rates, on Buch a principle ? Certainly not. In the provinces, at any rate,privilege and responsibilty go together, and the man with the most valuable block of land, or the largest house, or the most valuable property-, is made to contribute the largest share of all provincial taxes, and I say that in this respect as in many others, the Provincial Governments are vastly superior to the General Government! and if we must have a change in the Constitution, I say let us attack it where the seat of disease is most chronic, and the symptoms most apparent, and then the General Government will receive the first blow. But the fact is we do not want a change in the Constitution at all, but wo do want a better use made

of it, and the numerous abuses swept away. Again I niust defer the conclusion of this letter, which has, I fear, already exceeded your limits. Yours, &c> A Member of the League.