Rangitikei Advocate. THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9425, 22 April 1909, Page 4

Rangitikei Advocate. THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

THE scarcity of money for loans in the Dominion is evidenfe'eno'ugb, but the cause and care of this state of affairs are not so easily discovered. The leading business men ot the country who discussed the question at the Conference of Chambers of Commerce last week came to the conclusion that the Mortgage Tax was one at least of ths causes which made capitalists unwilling to lend money in the Dominion. At the close of the Conference they had an interview with Sir Joseph Ward, and ■ suggested to him that it would be for the benefit of the country , l if the Mortgage Tax were abolished and Income Tax charged Instead on the revenue obtained from mortgages. Sir Joseph told the deputation that the change would merely ba one from the frying pan into the fire as the Mortgage Tax only amounted to 6s 3d per cent., whereas an Income Tax would come to between 7s or 8s per cent. In reply to some murmurs of dissent, Sir Joseph said that his figures had been drawn up with the greatest care and could be implicitly relied on.- To such a statement it was of course impossible to make any reply at the time and tation was'as it, were floated oat of the door on the fall flood of the Prime Minister’s eloquence. Examination of the facta shows that Sir Joseph’s figures were founded on inaccurate data. Ac the, present time the tax on a mortgage of £IOO at %d in the £is 6a 3d. A Parliamentary paper giving the amount of mortgages registered in the Dominion for the sear ending March, 1907, shows that out of the fourteen millions held in mortgages eleven millions are borrowed at rates which do not average more than 5 per cent. A mortgage of £IOO would therefore bring an income of £5 per annum, the Income Tax on which would amount to 2s 6d, unless the total income of the mortgagee was over £I3OO a year in which case Income Tax ac Is in the £ would amount to ss. These figures differ from those given by the Prime Minister and it is evident that in order to obtain his results the interest on mortgages must be 7 or 8 per cent, and k the Income Tax at,the maximum rate of Is, With assumptions of this nature it is not difficult for him to bring out almost any results desired.

THE present Ministry claim great credit for the reduction in interest on loans, owing to’; the passing of the Loans to'Settlers Act’ As Goverment mortgages pay no Mortgage Tax it is obvious that the State can always lend money at 6s 3d per cent. lower than private persons, but this is at the coat of the general taxpayer. Loans under the Act to the amount of £3,000,000 involve a loss of revenue of £6250 a year, which would be paid had the money been lent by private persons.

WiITHIN a comparatively short time the Dominion has deservedly become the leading morning paper in Wellington, and has gained a very large circulation throughout the country districts. It has become thoroughly popular, and has done good service to the public by its free criticism of public affairs. Of course it has therefore been boycotted by Ministers, and State advertising is withheld from it. Party service, not circulation, is the guide when| Ministers have any advertising to be done, and the policy of the spoils to the victors is still being followed. In the coarse of an article referring to this action of Ministers the Dominion says During the General Election contest in November last jj became our unpleasant duty to direct public attention to a grave abuse .of power on the part of the Government directly affecting the public interest. The occasion in question was the refusal of Ministers to advertise the polling places for the election in certain country papers. In two oases at least—those of the Rangitikei Advocate and the Manawatn Standard—the papers boycotted were the leading journals in their respective electorates, and the effect of the Government’s action, but for the conduct of the proprietors, would have been to keep from such of the public as subscribed to the papers the information necessary to enable them to exercise their duty as citizens on polling day. At the time we commented on this gross abuse of authority on the part of the Government, which was accentuated by the fact that the papers in question had been outspoken critics of Ministerial maladministration. It was certainly ajjonrions coincidence that these particular papers should have been selected for this petty but unprincipled action, while many other journals with smaller circles of readers were not so penalised.”