The Times. PUBLISHED ON TUESDAY AND FRIDAY AFTERNOONS. FRIDAY, MAY 25, 1917 EQUALITY OF SACRIFICE.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 6, Issue 278, 25 May 1917, Page 2

The Times. PUBLISHED ON TUESDAY AND FRIDAY AFTERNOONS.

FRIDAY, MAY 25, 1917 EQUALITY OF SACRIFICE.

" We nothing extenuate, nor net down auaht in malice

♦ IT appears to be pretty generally conceded that in the coming session Parliament will be called upon to make some drastic change in the incidence of war taxation. Experience has shown that the existing method of taxing " war profits," though well intontioncd, has not proved equitable in practice. Mr James

Craigie, a southern member, is already to the lore with a scheme of his own, based, he claims, on the sound principle of equality of sacrifice. Mr Craigie has frequently given expression to his opinions on

this subject. Speaking at Timaru last week, he said "he could not stand to see some families send three or four to the front while members of other families refused to go: The ballot for the conscription of men was in existence, but he would go further than that. They had the ballot, but still this was not complete equality of sacrifice. Some were fit to go, others were not. The man who was fit to go left his billet and went off on a soldier's pay, while the unfit man remained and not only kept his billet, but saved his skin at the same time," This, as Mr Craigie truly says, is not equality of sacrifice. Briefly stated, Mr Craigie contends that the men who are fortunate enough to be allowed to remain at home —and especially all those who are well to do —should be compelled to " make good " to the soldiers and their dependents. Up to i March the war had cost New Zealand twenty-four and a-half millions. Of this twenty millions was borrowed money. The , member for Timaru holds it to be wrong for us to " sponge on the Old Country," and his suggestion is that instead of raising another local loan," the Government should make a levy on the wealth of New Zealand." There was, he says, no patriotism in the last loan. The investors got per cent, for their money, free from income tax. Mr Craigie has no more liking for the financial shirker than he has for the soldier shirker, and he " would make a levy on the wealth of New Zealand and commandeer enough to do full justice to the dependents of soldiers." In outlining his scheme, Mr Craigie said : He had submitted it to leading men in the Dominion, who supported it. Some wealthy men had given freely, others had not given anything and he wished to give credit to those who had given and compel those who had not given to pay the full amount of the levy. His scheme would provide that everybody should be left a living income. The levy would begin on a low scale and increase in a sliding rate. His scheme was as follows :—Anything below £2500 would be exempt, and the levy would be as follows :

Per £ £ cent 2000 to 5000 - - 1 5000 to 7500 - - U 7500 to Ki,ooo - - 2 10,000 to 15,000 - - 3 15,000 to 20,000 - - 4 20,000 to 30,000 - - " 5 30,000 to 40,000 - - 6 40,000 to 50.000 - - 7 50,000 to 60,000 - - S 60,000 to 70,000 - - 9 70,000 to ,SO,OOO. - - 10 In all cases £2500 would be exempt. The following amounts would pay the following levy : £ £ 5,000 - - 25 7,500 - - 75 10,000 - - 150 15,000 - 375 20,000 - - 700 30,000 - - 1,375 40,000 - - 2,250 50,000 - - 3,325 60,000 - - 4,600 70,000 - - 6,750 80,000 - - 7,750

Thus the more wealth a person had the greater the levy. He had stopped at 10 per cent, but what of the man who was worth half a million ? Should he not be compelled to make some sacrifice for the dependents of those who had fought ? Wealth was a secondary consideration compared with human life. Three of the richest men in the district were in favour of the scheme, and had told him that he was on the right track and they were prepared to pay their share and had advised him to go on and educate public opinion on the scheme. Speaking personally, he was willing to give £1 for £l, provided the other fellow did the' same, and he was willing to spend his last shilling in defence of the Empire. Be would not collect the levy at once, but would spread it over a period of three years. When the Government had the money obtained by the levy, it could pay 5 per cent, of it into a permanent fund to he callled the Permanent Soldiers' Assurance Fund. He would not allow the fund to be under the control of the < iovornment, but would place il under the control of trustees. The estimated value

of the private wealth in land in (he Dominion was 371 millions, and this did not include stock. The Hon. C W. Russell had placed it as high as 800 millions. Il might be asked why the same results could not be obtained by

taxation. Mr Massey had said that all taxation was finally passed on to the consumer and the worker; but the workers numbered 80 per cent, and it was chiefly from this 80 per cent, that the soldiers were drawn. Would it be right for this 80 per cent, to be asked to fight for the country and then tax them ? His scheme would avoid this. A tax of 4"> per cent, had been imposed on war profits, and there was a howl of indignation from the profitmakers. He had no sympathy for them. These profits would pass away after the war, and they did not know what might happen. It was thought that money would be tight and the spending power of the people would decrease, and for those reasons he wished the soldiers' dependents' fund to be put on a firm basis, and not subjected to fluctuations of the money market.

Although Mr Craigie's scheme may not, upon analysis, prove to be the best solution of th e problem.it at least provides a basis for discussion, and it is certainly equitable in its purpose. There is a lot of wealth in this Dominion, and those possessed of it should certainly be compelled to do their just share.