PUBLIC EXPENDITURE

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24418, 2 October 1940, Page 9

PUBLIC EXPENDITURE

TO I’HE EDITOB

Sir, —One has become so accustomed to reading in Hansard or hearing over the wireless the attacks on the Minister of Public Works for spending too much money. Members of Parliament who make these attacks end them by asking that more money be spent in their electorate on some very necessary work that would create new avenues of additional employment. I am sure everyone who, for years, especially since the war began, has read your

leading articles which caustically commented on the extravagance of the Public Works Minister must have enjoyed your smile-raising article entitled “ An Unsympathetic Minister,” in which you urge the Minister to irrigate 14,000 acres in the Upper Clutha Valley and another 9000.t0 12,000 acres in the Styx Valley. Thus on the one hand the Minister at times has been berated by you for not closing down public works during war so as to liberate men for farm work, and now you want them employed on these extra essential services. It means you who have deplored excessive expenditure on public works are now urging more expenditure. In every centre the daily panel's, anxious to advance the development of the locality of which they have knowledge, after criticising expenditure on public works, urge the Minister to spend money on some necessary development work for the lack of which they say their Industrial advancement is cramped. Surely it is only fair that if the Minister adheres to the requests he should be saved from political “ suspect ” charges of extravagance for carrying out works that, in addition to expanding production, are self-supporting. In line with the above attack Is a typical letter by “A Victim ” entitled “A Dictatorship in New Zealand.” in which your correspondent poses as an authority on German expenditure. He says;—“ Income tax in Germany is,\for example. £25 10s for a childless couple, and in addition there are a citizen tax. unemployment insurance, social insurance, super tax on incomes over £4OO a capital tax on a capital of over £SOO and a defence tax in certain cases.” Surely your correspondent can see that if Germany has imposed this taxation for the purpose of invading the British Empire, as she has invaded other countries, it is obvious some form of taxation must be imposed to enable us to resist. If the workers cheerfully submit to the 5 per cent, increase in sales tax, which makes clothes dear, the 5 per cent, increase in war tax. the increase in Customs duty, postage, inclusion in income tax etc., for defence purposes, it is up to the rentier class to submit also to a super tax on incomes over £4OO and a levy on' capital over £SOO. Were we not told that if conscription of manpower was introduced there would be conscription of wealth? A workers’ government has so far taxed workers, but your correspondent will have nothing to complain of if the wealthy are asked to contribute equally to the revenue to help pay the cost of the war. If the Government took everything over £4OO per annum, they would still have £4OO a year to live on, which is more than any worker has left after his wage tax and income tax are paid. If men give their lives, as our soldier sons do, they give all they have got. Surely the rich people can uncomplainingly during war time submit to taxation to pay for defence and to equip and maintain the soldiers If Germany puts all her wealth behind her aggressive acts, we may have to do the same to defend ourselves. The alternative is treacherous submission such as Denmark, Holland, Poland, and France had put across them. That is why such letters as that of your correspondents must be viewed as politically suspect.—l am, etc., J. E. MacManus. [The above letter completely misrepresents us.—Ed. O.D.T.[