Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE MAYOR IN REPLY.

(To the Editor “Stratford Post.”), 'Sir,rr-I am not a professional accountant, neither is Mr. Kirkwood, and I suspect our opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the figures given in the circular in question is much of a muchness. I read the circular as any plain non-professional man would read it, “and as it was intended the ratepayers of Stratford should read it”—namely,- that if Prohibition should be carried it will become necessary to increase the rates by £619. That this is what those responsible for the circular intended the ratepayers to understand would actually happen is proved by the statement at the foot of the circular: “The above not only affects property owners, rents always rise with rates.” It is true that the author of the circular has cunningly mixsd up the questions of general and local revenue so as to afford a loophole for escape when tackled. The circular is a specimen of that worst kind of lie—a half truth—of which so many have been sown broadcast by the Trade during this contest. It is worded with intent to deceive. The idea that the loss in general revenue will be made up by extra local rates, or even by ratepayers alone to the exclusion of non-ratepayers, is preposterous. The revenue will be, more than made up by the Customs duties collected on the goods bought with money that will then not be spent on liquor, and as a very large annual saving will be made in the maintenance of gaols, lock-ups, police stations, hospitals, lunatic asylums, and the like, and on the pay of magistrates, police, warders, hospital attendants, excise meu ; etc., it will not be necessary to raise so large a revenue. By the way, can anyone explain why a falling-off of £573,000 from a total revenue of, say, £8,000,000, which is about 7 per cent., should necessitate a rise of from 30 to 50 per cent, on the taxation ? This is what the circular says, and it seems to need explanation.—l am, etc., J. MASTERS.*

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/STEP19111206.2.18.2

Bibliographic details

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 96, 6 December 1911, Page 5

Word Count
343

THE MAYOR IN REPLY. Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 96, 6 December 1911, Page 5

THE MAYOR IN REPLY. Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 96, 6 December 1911, Page 5

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert