MARRIED MEN'S DISABILITIES.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 207, 21 August 1908, Page 2

MARRIED MEN'S DISABILITIES.

The lion. .J. Barr in the Legislative Council lust night returned to the nutrition of the disabilities under which the married worker is placed as compared with the single worker, buU unfortunately the opportunity has not yet. been afforded of a full discussion oil the subject, owing to the intervention of Parliamentary "adjournments." In some quarters Mr. Barr's views are regarded as quixotic, but really there is a very grave problem involved in the question. Sir. Barr, when first moving his mo' tion, urged the Government to consider the devising of some ameliorating mea- I suivs to reduce the extra cost of living to which the married male worker is subjected by the conditions attaching' to that state. (Particularly is this so where the expense of bringing up a number of children has to be borne, and it is not altogether surprising, no matter how regrettable, to find married persons avoiding a charge which they are :il able to meet. The effect is eiearly apparent in the birth-rate statistics', anil the onus of combating this evil rests on the State of Mew Zealand. The tion thrown out Ity Mr. Ha it is a yen' valuable one, as showing oik; way in which redress oi tin- dillivuliy may Ih> cfl'ected. IJis proposal is to give (,'k> mm tied man preference in to employment. .As ;i JJuuedin ciinLemporary points out, in i\o\v Zealand the ( 'OVeriiuK'nt has already recognised and put inlo practice ill more wavs than one the principle of giving special consideration to married workers. Under the Land Act the married man with a laniily is accorded a measure of preference in regard to lands opened for selection; in some departments of the public service the married man is e- , numerated more highly' than he would be il single; under the Government Advances to Workers Act advantages are offered of which th\ married worker ! s more likely than others to avail himself; and the workers' dwellings scheme nas instituted with the position ot hard-working and thrifty married workers in mind. Jlr. Barr's proposal that preference of employment should be given to married men is not new, lint it is probable, as he suggests, that a wider recognition of the principle might be brought about. There is another, and to our mind a more effective method of affording the married man some measure of relief, and that is in the direction of affording liini some special consideration in the matter of all Stateimposed charges. In Prussia this prin!q>le has already been adopted. There the income-tax assessors arc directed, in cases of incomes not exceeding £475 a year, to make allowance for (1) extraordinary obligations undertaken by taxpayers ou account of maintaining and educating children, (2) the maintenance ot poor relatives, (3) continuous illness, (4) debts, and (5) special misfortunes. Here we see even doctors' bills and broken limbs taken into consideration in the assessment of the income-lax. If a man is supporting his mother he receives a concession from the .Stale. There is another reform, which has some bearing on the question, in which we might learn a lesson from Prussia. Local taxes and income-tax are collected quarterly, so that instead of having to find .CIO or £l2 in a lump sum each year, the taxpayer has to face the less troublesome duty of paying four sums of £2 10s or --£3 each. Inspired by the Prussian precedent, the Lyttelton

limes considers then* is no reason whv the income-tax should not be subjected to adjustment in favor of the married man in, New Zealand, and suggests that it would be a reasonable proposal to reduce the exemption limit to rLIoO a vt'it i*, and to regard tile income of a married man a.s lieing the income of two persons. Instead of paying on ;£4ol> a year, lire married man and his wile would each pity income-tax mi a year loss Dip exemption, J\ further concession could Ik* wade in favor of' each child, ?.lust people, we think, will agree with our contemporary's contention that it should be the aim of the State to relieve married men and families of all special burdens, such, tor instance, as the illogical and undesirable tax of ;C1 i'2s (Id which the man i who marries is called upon to pay for a license fee. It is apparent, however, that the adjustment of the income-tax on the lines suggested would afl'ord little or no relief to the large number of married workers wlu»-e incomes do not reach taxable dimensions; The only way the State can help them is through the medium of indirect taxation.