The Daily News. TUESDAY, JULY 2,3, 1922. BURDEN OF TAXATION.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 July 1922, Page 4

The Daily News. TUESDAY, JULY 2,3, 1922. BURDEN OF TAXATION.

Although the Welfare League and the N.Z. Taxpayers’ Federation are doing their utmost to concentrate public attention on the imperative necessity for getting the House of Representatives pledged to go into the whole question of public expenditure and taxation, it is to be feared that the general disposition of the people to leave matters in the hands of those enthusiasts who are always striving, for the good of the community, will prevent the necessary action being taken to secure those administrative economies whereby alone taxation can be eased- Unhappily the matter is treated as one of party polities instead of being made the subject of first importance in national affairs. A glanee at the figures relating to the income and expenditure controlled by the Government emphasises this point very strongly. In the year 1913-14, the public contributed £12.229,66.1. whilst, the receipts increased to £34,260,961 in 1920-1. This means that over 22 millions more were extracted from the public in the latter year by way of taxation and increased charges in respect of publie services. A. material portion of that money has consequently been diverted from business expansion, increased production, the establishment of new enterprises, and the stimulation of trade. That, however. does not. complete the indictment against heavy taxation, inasmuch as besides having to find this enormous national revenue the prices of all, or most, commodities have been raised, thus piling the Ossa of trade upon the Pelion of taxation. That greater stagnation than was experienced did not, occur bears flattering testimony to the soundness of the country and the buoyancy of the people, yet sacrifices have been many and severe. There is nothing more certain than if the recent slump had not occurred, the need for drastic economy would never have aroused the outcry that lias taken place and forced the Government to reduce expenditure. How this expenditure has increased is shown bv the fact that/ in 1913-14 it totalled £11,825.863 (of which £7,589.776 was in respect of annual appropriations), while in 1921-2 it had reached I £29.102,837, the annual appropria- , 1 ions being £15.834.004. The rise in the permanent appropriations from 4-J millions to over 12) millions is mainly due to the war. therefore unavoidable. The fact of these latter heavy additions to the country’s burdens should of itself have made economy imperative in order that an adequate sinking fund should be built up. If a pair percentage of the extra taxation had been devoted to that, object, no complaint thereanent would be justified, but the persistent rise in i departmental expenditure surely is not justifiable. Take, for instance, the P. and T, Department, the expenditure on which rose from £1,170.882 in 1914 to £2,588,960 in 1921, whereas there was a decrease in business for tiie year ending March 31, 1922. by 1,149,192 telegrams, 88.275 bureau communications. 7882 money orders issued, and 11,858 paid. Instead of reorganising and reducing the staff to meet the increased cost, the public have been charged double for the services rendered by this department. The railways are another case in point, the increased earnings (due to extra charges) being about 6'5 per cent., while the increased expenditure was nearly 125 per cent. The expenditure of the Prisons Department has more than doubled since 1.914. the police cost nearly doubled. public health more than seven times, other departments on much the same scale. It is not sound business to appoini members of a department to pass judgment on the staffing and pay of their de-

.partinent. The facts and figures speak for themselves and call for business-like action in the direction of relieving the over-burdened taxpayers. It is, of course, a misfortune that this matter is utilised as political capital instead of being treated as one of national concern. The House of Parliament has a manifest duty to perform, and should perform that duty to the best of its ability. The policy of drift is mainly responsible for any hardships that may arise, and though that fact will not be any solace to the victims of retrenchment, it emphasises the. need for immediate and effective action in putting New Zealand’s house in order.