CORRESPONDENCE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume XIV, Issue 175, 24 July 1879, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

TO THE EdITOB OF THE "EvHNING MAIL." Sir — In today's Colonitt, under the heading " Financial Proposals," occur the following remarks:— "Few persons in the colony are so ill-informed as not to be alive to the alarming fact that the revenue as it stands is far from sufficient to meet the vecessary (the italics are mine) current expenditure, or as to the certainty that unless the deficiency is at once made up," &c, and farther on it is stated, " There will be at last an at tempt to levy a certain amount of revenue in proportion to the means instead of according to the necessities of the contributors." I for one must confess that lam ignorant of the above-named alarming fact. Indeed lam fully aware that the revenue as it stands is insufficient to meet the current expenditure, but I deny that it is either a necessary or a just expenditure for any Government to pay subsidies to local bodies, seeing that those sums have to a large extent been obtained from the necessities of the poor, and that they frequently go solely to improve the properties of those who have the means to tax themselves. If this principle were recognised we could not only afford to have a free breakfast, but also a free dinner and supper table. If the Customs duties were reduced to yield only as much as is necessary to carry on the legitimate functions of the Government, then the people would be enabled to tax themselves for local purposes, and in that case the owners of properties would have to pay a fair share towards the improvement of their properties. To show the unfairness of the present system allow me to illustrate it by an example. Mr A. has no property, but he has a wife and say ten children to maintain, whereas bis neighbor, Mr 8., the owner of a large estate, has no family. It follows that, if we are to pay for our table, Mr A. has twelve times as much to pay as Mr B , and as part of this money levied upon our necessities is given back in the shape of subsidies for local purposes, it further follows that Mr B. reaps the benefit of tha money paid by Mr A. in excess of the requirements for the proper governing of the country. If we let Mr A. represent that largely predominating class, the people without property, and Mr B. the landed proprietor class, it becomes apparent that the many are taxed heavily to benefit the few. As the details of the proposed income tax are as yet unknown, it is perhaps premature to discuss it, yet I would remark that the term "means" ought to be taken in a relative sense. Thus the single man with an income of £100 has more means than the abovenamed Mr A. with an income of £150. Besides this, it would be manifestly unfair to tax him for his necessities first, and for his means after.— l am, Sec, H. A. L. Nelion, July 22nd, 1879.|