The Daily News. MONDAY, AUGUST 16, 1920. TAXATION

Taranaki Daily News, 16 August 1920, Page 4

The Daily News. MONDAY, AUGUST 16, 1920. TAXATION

The discussion which took place in the House on Tuesday relative to the annual Taxing Bill was more remarkable for interjections than for sound arguments concerning taxation. Mr. Veitch certainly voiced the general feeling that exists as to the necessity for a readjustment of the incidence of taxation, and particularly with regard to the burden of indirect taxation through the Customs. In this connection Mr. W. B. Parry argued that, taking the average family of husband, wife, and two children, the estimated £6 per head of Customs duties meant a total of £24 a year, so that on an average wage of £2OO a year the contribution would be 12| per cent., as against three per cent, on an income of £IOOO a year. Of course in practice the incidence does not work out that' way, as the duties on highly priced luxuries are heavy, and do not touch the people of small incomes at all. At the same time the community in general is being unreasonably burdened by reason of the delay in revising the tariff, and the cost of living is adversely affected. As Mr. Statham demonstrated, it is the men with large families who are most seriously affected, but it would be impossible to devise a tariff that took this factor into consideration. The real trouble is the abnormal rise in departmental expenditure, aggravated by the fact that in recent years there has been a minimum of outlay on many activities of the State, thus necessitating the provision of funds for making up the leeway. Meanwhile charges in conneetion with the war have risen enormously, wages and materials have followed suit, and the Government is desperately in need of every shilling on which it can lay its hands. It is idle foi; Mr. Massey to endeavor to show that taxation through the Customs bears a more favorable percentage to direct taxation now than it did in 1900. When confronted with the

retort that the comparison did not do away with the fact that the Government was getting a million more from the Customs, all that the Premier could say was "Well, I can do with it." Nor does it answer the point raised by Mr. Statham that while direct taxation was estimated to produce £22,000 less, this year, Customs duties were expected to bring in a million more and excise £300,000 more. Manifestly the urgent need for raising a higher revenue should have been met by facing the situation in a business-like way in order that an equitable system should be, evolved. It cannot be claimed that the financial emergency has been sprung upon the Government; it has simply been allowed to drift until it has become so intricate that it has got beyond the capacity of the authorities to remedy without appointing a special committee to unravel the tangle and bear the odium of the inevitable denunciation that will be made when the bulk of the burden is placed on the shoulders of thgse best able to bear it. The extreme Labor members evidently I made the most of the opportunity afforded by the debate to air their socialistic views and thrust a lance against those "who are getting something for nothing." Their contentions are not likely to be taken seriously, and can be ignored. The discussion, although it had no direct effect, was productive of some good in emphasising the injustice of the present incidence of taxation and the part it plays in raising the cost of living. Until land assessments have been brought into line with present prices obtained for land, and the whole system of taxation has been readjusted on sound economic lines, the present evils will grow, whereas it was expected they would have been remedied this year. Irritating as is the delay, it will be pardoned if it results in a satisfactory solution of a by no means easy problem.