The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 1917. EQUALITY OF SACRIFICE.

Taranaki Daily News, 21 March 1917, Page 4

The Daily News. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 21, 1917. EQUALITY OF SACRIFICE.

In the course of a recent letter to tlie News, Mr. James Hine, of Tikorangi, submitted that the press had "most lamentably failed in its duty" ill respect of the farmers' income tux returns and farmers' responsibilities in connection with military service. We would prefer our correspondent to have been a little more definite in his charge, for tlien we could have discussed the point more fully. But we are bound to take exception to his remark in this respect, because we feel that, as regards this journal at any rate, it is quite unjustified. We have never hesitated to speak our mind freely on the shortcomings of the Government in regard both to the farmers' income tax and military service, and, goodness knows, there has been justification enough, for greater incompetence ana culpability at a time of grave national crisis could not have been exhibited by a government of any country. The mistakes were fundamental, and all the subsequent troubles have arisen from them. Take the farmers' income tax. That never had anything to' commend it. Few farmers kept books, and were in no position, when the Government called upon them to do so, to set out their profits and loss, and give an accurate statement of their positions. Many tried, with the result that they have been mulcted in taxes they have no right to pay, simply because they have not earned the "excess profits" for which they are charged. Again, others. have | conscientiously shown their positions and been made to pay for the extra labor put in by members of their families on account of the sons being away at the front. This, of course, i» the law, and cannot be got away from, but it is an unjust law and should be amended Others again, as Mr. Hine suggests, are shirking their financial obligations to the Government. These men we have no desire to defend. Tliuy are bigger "shirkers" really than those who lirve tried' to escape their military duties, as are those who Bay they will not continue farming, operations just because half of the profits made are taken by the Government. If they reflected a little they would find that after all, if the Government took the whole of their excess profits, the service they so rendered the State would be nothing at all as compared with the service of the brave lads

who are sacrificing everything—their lives—that the farmers and others here might live in safety and civilisation be saved. Those who cannot fight must pay, and, what is more, they should cheerfully pay. That, roughly, is the position as it stands, not/ks wo would like it. In our view, the whole basis of taxation is wrong. The Government could have devised easily enough a more effective system of taxation. An export tax would have been mere satisfactory. Then there could have been no escaping from payment, as our correspondent states is the case now. Every producer would have paid in proportion to the amount he produced. Of course, the Farmers' Union and others reply that such a tax would be inequitable and pernicious, because it would have affected sharemilkers and the small man and proved a handle for the city representatives to turn to the disadvantage of the producer after the war. We must confess that we cannot see how the tax would operate more inequitably than does the present butter-tax, income-tax, and the excess profits tax. Indeed, we are satisfied the small man, for whoso solicitude some of the bigger men profess so much regard, would have been infinitely better off than he is now. Besides, the export tax would have assisted the working man here very materially, which is an important point. As for military service, the Government, ill our opinion, failed in its duty in not at the outset conscripting labor generally when it conscripted eligibles for war service. Surely if it is right—and undoubtedly it is—to conscript men for the front, it is equally right to conscript men for home service in order to maintain the essential industries. Because this was not done, we. now see all sorts of expedients attempted to stave off. trouble. Relying upon voluntaryism in this matter is about as fatuous and unjust as relying upon voluntaryism to keep up our military strength. The Government has done little or nothing to meet the situation. It certainly lias set up an Efficiency Board, but endowed it with no decisive powers. We have never advocated exemption from military service for the farming community. That would be wrong, because once exempt the farming classes and the other classes, especially the workers, would cause trouble of a ° kind we would not like to contemplate. The farmers have their responsibilities in regard to military service as well'as other sections of the community, and, we believe, they have so far discharged them in a way that leaves no room for criticism. As for the future, there is 110 doubt the dairying industry, for instance, is faced with a position full of difficulties, and calls for sympathetic help and co-operation, if the output of produce is to be maintained in any measure, as maintained it should be in the interests of the country and the army. The* organisatijn of this and others of the primary industries has been left practically alone, and the measures now being adopted do not appear likely to produce the results desired. Until compulsion of workers is applied, we are afraid matters will simply drift along and cause a "good deal of unnecessary in ■ convenience and loss. Conscription of labor as well as conscription of men for war service is what is needed, and the pity is the Government will not, or dare not, face the position squarely and do the right thing. Had wela Lloyd-George or a Richard Seddon thclcountry would long ere this have been thoroughly organised and whatever sacrifices are necessary—and we all must be prepared to make a sacrifice o at such a time as this—would have been on a more even and equitable basis than, unfortunately, is the case at present.