THE Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, JULY 2, 1891. OURSELVES.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2222, 2 July 1891, Page 2

THE Temuka Leader. THURSDAY, JULY 2, 1891. OURSELVES.

To-day we have much pleasure in introducing ourselves to our readers in a new dress. Our old clothes have been thrown aside, and now here we are in as presentable a garb as any in the land. It cannot be said that pride or pomp or love of display prompted j the change. Our bitterest enemy will admit that we wanted it. He must, however, admit also that we wore our old clothes with becoming dignity, and that their shabbiness never made us hesitate to express our opinions as independently as if dressed in the most costly raiment. He may possibly say now that we have changed our coat, and so far he will be within the truth, but we have not turned it, we have only put on a new one to make ourselves more presentable to our readers who will doubtless appreciate our endeavours to please them. However, we wore our old clothes with equanimity, and it becomes us now to pose in our new attire witli proper humility. This is the first new suit we have put on, and it is only natural that we should feel a little elated at our good fortune. Our dress cost a»

considerable sum of money, and it is not everyday we can afford such luxuries, but if our new appearance gives satisfaction to our readers we shall feel fully compensated for the outlay, and if they continue to patronise us in the new garb as they did in the old we shall have no difficulty in raising the price of a new suit when the present one is worn out. We have now only to thank our readers for the great liberality and kindness with which they have treated us in the past, and to express a hope that they will continue to extend to us a similar measure of support in future.

INCOME TAX. It is a trite saying that taxation in any form cannot be popular. The industrial classes of this colony have for years been clamoring against the property tax. It taxed unremunerative property; it taxed machinery lying idle ; it taxed concerns which were losing instead of making money; it taxed goods lying unsold in shops; and in fine taxed everything. They called it a most iniquitous tax, and demanded its abolition. The present Colonial Treasurer has proposed to abolish it, and to place in its stead an income tax. This has not pleased them. A meeting of the Manufacturer’s Association, of Dunedin, suggested that there should be no income tax, but that all taxation should be raised from a land tax and Customs duties. The Christchurch Industrial Association objected to the income tax on the ground that there should be no class distinctions made, and a meeting of employers in Wellington considered that the people had got accustomed to the property tax, and would prefer it to the new impost. It is, therefore, very difficult for a Colonial Treasurer to formulate a scheme of taxation which would please all. The large landowners are most ferocious because the land tax has been graduated on themselves, and now the men with large incomes object to having to hand over an income tax to carry on the Government. Mr Ballance, in his statement, shows that the laboring man is the highest taxed man in the land, yet he is saying nothing about it, while those who are well able to pay are objecting to doing so. We have very little sympathy with owners of large estates, but we must say that we do not think the income tax has been fairly adjusted. The payers of the income tax are divided into three classes. The first are those who are engaged in trade and commerce ; the second, companies ; and the third, persons deriving incomes from professions. Those engaged in trade and commerce must pay an income tax of Is in the £, but £3OO will be deducted as exemption from all salaries under £6OO, that is, a man having a salary of £6OO would have to pay taxation on only • £3OO. The moment, however, the income exceeds £6OO a different system is adopted. Only £l5O is then exempted, so that an income of £650 would pay taxation on £SOO. The tax on companies also is Is in the £, but they get no exemption at all. The companies must pay one shilling of every £ profit they make. The professional salaries are treated more liberally. These salaries get an exemption of £3OO all round. A man with £3OO a year would pay nothing ; a man with £SOO a year would pay taxes on £2OO only, and so on. The scale, too, is lower, They pay only 3d in the £ on salaries up to £2OO over the exemption, and 6d in the £ on salaries over that. Now, we cannot see why this distinction should be made. Let us take a lawyer, for instance, who makes £SOO a year out of his profession; he pays £2 10s income tax. Again a raanufactur who has, say, between £SOOO and £IO,OOO invested in his factory and makes £SOO a year out of it, must pay £lO income tax. Now, why should the man who is giving employment, and is thus a great benefactor, have to pay four times as much as the lawyer ? We cannot see how this can be looked upon as fair. It is not in accordance with the equality of sacrifice principle, and in all fairness both should contribute equally to the revenue. The fact is we regard this part of the scheme as clumsily arranged, and we believe that it is possible to so adjust taxation that the income tax can be made lighter. The resources of revenue are not yet exhausted. We do not think the banks and money-lenders are at all properly taxed, and it appears to us that they will pay far less than they did under the property tax. We are not surprised that dissatisfaction with the proposed income tax has been expressed, but it does not affect this district very largely. Few, if any, have incomes in this district, so wd need not trouble ourselves very much about it.