THE WAR TAX.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 66, 18 March 1915, Page 8

THE WAR TAX.

(To the Editor.) Sir.—l was much amused when I read of the Hamilton branch of the Farmers' Union passing a resolution against a tax on exports. I have always been taught that it is sound policy to tax those who can best afford to pay. According to the last Official Year Book I find that the total value of the produce of New Zealand for 1910-11 was £43,063,023, made np as follows:— £ Agricultural produce 4.150,789 Pastoral 25,4 x<1.830 Mining 3,774,898 Manufactures 7,040,tH0 Miscellaneous 2,07y,8UU Total £43.063.023 From the above it is easily seen that the farmer and the pastoralist produce £29,567,619 out of a total of £43,063,023. On page 333 there is a graph showing the percentage of the various exports that go to make up the total value of the exports for 1912, viz., £21,272,405. I will give those relating to the farmer and the .squatter: Wool, 33.4 per cent; meats, l!).O6 per cent; butter and cheese, 17.72 per cent; skins, hides, etc., 4.92 per cent; tallow, 3.22 per cent; agricultural produce, 4.99 per cent; a total of 83.31 per cent. That is, out of every £100 of exports, .£B3 0/ is earned by the produce of tue tanner and the squatter. If these who are responsible for the greater part of the wealth earned by New Zealand are not to be taxed, then who is to be taxed 1 Surely it is not to be the working man, who is already groaning over the high , price he has to pay for the produce of the land that he requires—meat, butter, flour. 'I consider the proposition to tax exports is the soundest proposal put forth yet. It's all nonsense to say the squatter and the farmer can't pay it. They are having a glorious innings owing to the war. When Parliament meets 1 hope to see this question approached in a bold manner, and the greater part of tax put on what can ■afford best to pay it—the land. Mr. Massey has his opportunity now to show if he is a statesman worthy to follow in the steps of Ballance, Seddon and Ward.—l am, etc., OBSERVER. . LABOUR'S BREAD SCHEME. (To the Editor) Sir,—According to your cabled reports from Sydney, Air. Hall, Attorney-Gen-eral in the New South Wales LabourSocialist Government, has outlined a scheme for State-owned bakeries. By borrowing from private capitalists to the extent of half a million pounds for compensation money, to be paid in the purchase of about forty- bakeries in the city of Sydney area, ho contends his Labour Government' could deliver bread to private houses at one penny per loaf cheaper. Mr. Hall, so the cable states, proposes to economise by purchasing flour in large quantities,'eliminating the cost of running and spending no nioneyr«*l?aS¥!erti»ing'.*r carters' bonuses.' Business is to be done on a purely cash basis. "Please do not ask for .cxedjt" is, tp.be placed in the window of the State bakery. The scheme, when examined and analysed, from all economic viewpoints, is'one of the most farcical ever attempted to be palmed , off on gullible humane. Such transparent rubbish, however, will not deceive the intelligently observant of the electors. We know that in Sydney, as in Auckland, there are hundreds of master bakers in competition with one another. Every master baker has from one to twenty delivery carte or more, according to 'business done. Every cart has a horse and a'driver. Everyone has a separate bakehouse, separate business premises, his separate shop assistants, bookkeepers, and so on. Mr. Hall proposes to adopt the Trust's methods of scientific management in production and delivery, and by eliminating waste he, proposes to out down expenses in all departments. His proposal is to work on the lines of out post office system, under which only one postman to, say,_ a block, is required. Let ne concede that by bo cutting do-wn trade expenses, by so cutting out waste, bread can and will be cheapened by a penny per loaf, but do not let tm lose sight of the fact that what is gained in one direction is lost in many other directions. Mr. Hall's scheme must result in -wholesale ' unemployment, and what is the good of a cheaper loaf, if the wage-earning classes have their purchasing power considerably lessened by unemployment. . Mr. Hall states t-liat "by sending one cart to a street instead of twenty different bakers' carts, it is estimated that theTe would be a saving of £150,000 per annum in delivery charges alone." ' The no-credit system will mean hundreds of bookkeepers thrown out of work, one bakehouse instead of :thirty means so many bakehouse hands less, one cart instead of twenty to one street means one driver employed where there were twenty before, so many carts thrown off the rounds means so many coachbuildere, painters, woodworkers, ironworkers, etc, less required. So many less shops means hundreds of chop assistants thrown out of -work. Even the purchasing, of flour in large quantities scientifically delivered must affect hundreds of flounhill hands, as well as hundreds of outside drivers and others engaged in the transport service. Those thrown out of■.work -will have their purchasing power so reduced that lees bread will be in demand, and consequently co many less bakers will be required. In fact, by putting their thinkers to work on a little hard thinking, your readers will readily see that such a scheme will affect even thoee in newspaper offices employed to set up advertisements, billheads, posters, etc., also newspaper canvassers, clerks, tmd others, harnesemakeTß, and, in fact, workers engaged in almost every branch of industry. i The Labour Government's bread echeme is on a par with the State brickworks scheme. The Labour Government, by manufacturing on a non-profit basis, were able to manufacture cheaper bricks, which were purchased by speculative builders and others who owned their own sections. By the law of supply and demand workers' rente instead of falling actually rose. Even if the workers of New South iVVales were to get cheaper rents, cheaper bread? cte, their wages "would fall accordingly, as experience eliows. In conclusion, I would mention that quite recently the waitresses of Sydney had their wages reduced by about 25 per cent.—thie under a .Labour Government— X am, etc., •W. J. BELL.