THE FINANCE BILL

Taranaki Daily News, 17 December 1921, Page 4

THE FINANCE BILL

In his Budget statement, Mr. Massey intimated that legislation would, be laid before Parliament ‘ with the object o divine effect to the intentions of the Government in the way of economy and retrenchment, and which would provide for a readjustment of the revenue so

that the burden of taxation might press more equally upon the different sections of the community, and so that relic Wight be given where it was most ur-

gently required.” Although that statement was to a large extent of a vague and abstract nature, it was generally taken to mean that the large contributors to the national revenue would obtain substantial relief by the adoption of means that would compel the general public to bear at least a portion of the burden of taxation, partly indirectly through the Customs tariff and partly in other ways. Under the revised tariff few, if any, of the people will escape contributing to the national revenue, while the increase now proposed to be made in the amusement tax and on totalisator dividends w'ill be another form of contribution that will come out of the pockets of many who do not pay either income or land tax, and possibly are not affected by the excise duties. The fundamental principle that the whole community shall share in bearing the burdens of the State is, at a time of exceptional financial stress like the present, perfectly sound and just, provided it is based on equitable lifies. While there is apparently some force in the contention that the amusement tax should be graduated in order that those who pay for more expensive seats should contribute a proportionately higher levy, yet the flat rate of a penny for every sixpence charged for admission seems a fair course to adopt, though, it has to be borne in mind that amusements are already heavily levied upon. The proposal ’-o give a rebate of five per cent, on payment by a given date is likely to provoke considerable discussion. In the case of land tax the rebate offered is ten per cent., but Mr. Massey says that he cannot see his way to make the income tax rebate higher than five per cent., because “if availed of in all cases the rebate would mean a concession of £300,000.” There appears to be a striking inconsistency in this discrimination between land and income tax payers, especially in view of the Premier’s statement that people cannot go on paying the heavy income tax they have been paying during the war years. The income tax payers have an equal claim for consideration as those who pay land tax. j Mr. Holland’s threatened hold-up of the Bill is hardly likely to be taken seriously.