EVERYBODY'S WAR.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIV, Issue 16632, 31 August 1917, Page 4

EVERYBODY'S WAR.

The problems that are facing tho 1917 session of the New Zealand Parliament are chiefly those of finding the men and the money necessary to enable us to do our utmost in the Empire's cause in the war. Legislation already passed is automatically supplying the men, and Parliament is now busy with preparations for providing the financial sinews of war. A large loan and a largo revenue are the essentials of the hour, and the Government by means of compulsory subscriptions and graduated taxation is seeking, rightly, to place the burdens on the shoulders of those who are best able to bear them. But in this there is the danger of creating in the community the feeling that the wealthy alone should bear the burden. It would be well if many of those whose time is taken up in declaiming against wealth in every shape and form would try to realise that this is not a war limited to any particular class, but one in which every New Zealander has a direct and vital interest. It is everybody's war, and it is the duty of everybody to contribute according to their means. In the New Zealand Army all classes are represented, but when money is sought too little emphasis is laid on the cumulative value of small contributions. The compulsory clauses of the Finance Bill have no message for the vast number of men with incomes under £1000 per year ; great numbers of people who are able to bear a small share of the cost of war are exempt from income tax. It is the duty of Sir Joseph Ward and of the whole Cabinet to make every citizen realise the significance of the great struggle in which the Empire is engaged, and to so frame our laws that they will check, wherever it appears, any tendency to untrammelled extravagance. The Herald has frequently expressed the opinion that a system of taxation that makes a high levy at one end of a graduated scale should do something to extend the other end. The £300 exemption from income tax should be lowered to £200, with an allowance, for a wife and for each child. More consideration should be given to the family. At present by some strange injustice exemption is only allowed for five children. In view of the present high cost of living there is every reason why more should be done for the man with the large family, and more expected from the man who has no direct responsibilities. Can any form of taxation be considered equitable that does not even ask a direct contribution of £5 from a man who is receiving an income of £250 a year, and who has neither wife nor children