Rangitikei Advocate. FRIDAY, MAY 7, 1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXIV, Issue 9438, 7 May 1909, Page 4

Rangitikei Advocate. FRIDAY, MAY 7,1909. EDITORIAL NOTES.

IN that interesting series of essays entitled ‘ ‘ The Trials of a Country Parson,” there appears a very interesting formula for the equalisation of incomes which we recommend to the attention of the Socialists in this country. The formula is said to have [been devised by a Frenchman and, ka a method of taxation, it certainly is a weapon worthy of the country which invented” the [guillotine. Expressed algebraically the formula is very simple and even in words it is easy enough to understand. The foundation of the scheme is that £IOOO a year is just a comfortable Income, and, that therefore, all who have a smaller one should receive a subsidy from the State, while those who receive more should make a cpntribution increasing very fast as .their Income becomes greater than £IOOO. The rule on which the contribution is assessed, is as follows :—Take the difference between; the income and £IOOO and, after multiplying it by itself, divide ...by ten thousand. The result is the contribution from the State in the case of incomes under:£looo, and the contribution to the State in the case of inoomes above £IOOO. A [few examples will make the working of the system clear, ‘Take the case of an income of £IOO per annum. The difference between this sum and £IOOO is £9OO. Nine hundred multiplied by itself and divided by 10,000 gives £Bl, the amount of the State subsidy to a person earning only £IOO per annum. Similarly the subsidy on an income of £2OO would be £64. A man with no income at all would receive as may he easily calculated a sum of £IOO. Turning to the other end off-tfae scale we find that an income of £IOOO would neither pay tax nor receive subsidy. A man with £3OOO per annum would pay to the State £IOO a year, one with £4OOO a tax,of £9OO a year. The system begins to be really effective when an income of about £12,000 isjjreaohed, as in this case the taxation would amount to £12,100, which would probably act as sufficient warning against the further amassing of wealth. How far the' system would be a practicable one we are not concerned to ask, because that is not a point to which Socialists attach any importance. The scheme simply carries out the method of graduated taxation to a logical conclusion. IN saying that it would be better if the Ministry made less use of the Savings Bank, Mr Massey touched on a matter to whch we have frequently called attention. The Post Office Savings Bank receives the savings of the people, and last year the total of these amounted to over million pounds. But outfof that total the Government has borrowed over 10 millions. Had this money been available for loans on mortgage it would‘have enormously benefited the country. Moreover its use in this manner would have benefited depositors,"because the Department would have been able, to obtain at least 5 per cent, on good securities, and could then have afforded to pay depositors at least 4 per cent, instead of the beggarly rate now paid. In borrowing from these Departments the Ministry does not benefit the country. No money is thus brought into it, and what is already in it is seized for purposes for which money shodld be obtained from outsiders, if it Is really needed. The public debt is increased without benefit to the' people, besides which, when snob a Department has all its cash locked up in Government securities; it is exposed to danger should the Treasury run low, and there be a sadden demand by depositors for withdrawal of their money.