INEQUALITIES OF TAXATION.

Temuka Leader, Issue 1621, 16 August 1887, Page 2

INEQUALITIES OF TAXATION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—l shall feel obliged if you will allow me, through the medium of your columns, to place before the electors of South Canterbury in general, and the farmers in particular, in a more elaborate form than before, a few remarks on New Zealand taxation. I will first observe that we have two widely different methods of levying taxes—the one in use in the Property Tax Act, which compels every man to pay in proportion to his property; and the other in use in all our Customs, Excise, etc., which compels every man, whether rich or poor, to pay the same sum. It must be obvious to every thinking man that as these two methods involve widely different principles, if the one be sound and just the other must be fraudulent. The true principle of taxation, according to' the best is that every man pays the same ratio of his property, or, in other words, makes the same sacrifice to the State. The Hon. W. Rolleston warmly approves of this principle when it suits his purpose, especially in defending the present Property Tax and in attacking Sir Julius Yogel’s proposal to make it graduated. Sir John Hall speaks in the same tone, and they are both, very fond of quoting John Stuart Mill. I may here remark, en passant, that to hear men quoting John Stuart Mill whose whole conduct in public loe has been a practical contradiction of his teaching! must fill every honest, man j with disgust. It seems to mi to be r literary ss.crilege. Ah well .may a/ 1 Freethinker quote the third ehaptsr i ]

of Ecclesiastes to prove that the Bible ■ denies the immortality of the soul. ■ Sir J. Vogel wished to make the Pro- ' perty Tax a graduated one, in order that the inequalities of the Customs Duties might he partially redressed, ■ and a little of the burden laid on the right shoulders. This proposal was received in a manner which emphatically proved the truth of the saying of the wise man: “ The poor is robbed even of his own neighbor, but the rich hath many friends.” The “ many friends” throughout the colony loudly protested ; the. Chambers of Commerce recommended that the burden should be laid on spirits, to* bacco, tea, and sugar; and Sir J. Hall shouted at Leestoh, “ I say, tax spirits and tobacco!” I will now explain the reason, and first take the spirit duties. Now, it is well known that the working classes drink more spirits than the rich, and this fact gives strength to my argument. The spirit duty in 1885 yielded £360,000. Supposing an ordinary drinking man to consume eight gallons in the year, and this is, a very moderate estimate, the result would be as follows, according to income, duty 14s 6d gallon. A man with an income of—■ Per cent. £IOO would pay : ... 5.8 £SOO „ „ ... 1.16 £IOOO „ „ ... .58 £2OOO ~ „ ... .29 £SOOO „ 116 This is testing the matter by the principle of the Property Tax — equality of sacrifice. Now for the tobacco duty. This is a very fair one to test, as every moderate smoker, whether rich or poor, consumes much about the same. The tobacco duty in 1885 yielded £207,354, the duty being 3s 6d per lb. Supposing tbe average smoker to consume 12lbs per year. A man with an income of— Per cent. £IOO wou'd pay ... 2.1 £SOO ~ ~ ... .42 £IOOO „ „ ... .21 £2OOO „ ... .105 £SOOO „ „ ... .042 To satisfy the “ equality of sacrifice ” principle the man at £SOOO per year must smoke fifty pounds of tobacco in the time the man at £IOO smokes one pound!!! The tea duty is 4d per lb, and it yields annually about £70,000. At an average of lib per week per family a man with an income of— Per cent, i £IOO would pay ... .86 , £SOO „ „ ... .172 , £IOOO ~ „ ... .086 , £SOOO „ 0172 1 The sugar duty yields about £IOO,OOO j at -|d per lb. Allowing 8 lbs per week per family, the amount paid, and ) the percentage is exactly the same as for tea. As the whole of the Cus--1 toms Duties are on the same principle I —graduated to suit the rich man —the i farmers and struggling elassess of • South Canterbury will easily see why the Opposition leaders are so much in f favor of increasing those duties. A s 5 tea and sugar are necessaries of life , every elector should require a pledge ' from the candidate he supports in i favor of the total abolition of duty on them, even if 2d in the £ had to he paid in property tax. Apologising for trespassing so much on your valuable space.—lam, etc., Thos, Let. f Opihi, August I2thi 1887. [The aim of the Opposition is to increase the tax on the necessaries of 1 the poor. They do not want local , industries developed because they want low wages. What the monopolists want is cheap goods, cheap labor, » and dear wool. Make “ the rich richer, and the poor poorer.” This is I what they are combining together for. i The proposal of the Grovernment is to put an extra tax on goods we can i produce here, and let tea, sugar, etc., come in as free as possible. Mr Ley puts the case most forcibly, and if the poor do not see how unjustly they are taxed it is not Mr Ley’s fault. We shall be glad to hear again from Mr Ley.—The Editou ]