THE WAR TAX.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 69, 22 March 1915, Page 4

THE WAR TAX.

Out Saturday's issue contained »n -interview with the Chairman of Directors of the Bank of New Zealand, in which Mr Beauchamp eet forth once more his arguments in favour of a uniform tax on imports and exports to meet the expenses entailed by the war. 'We do not see that Mr Beauchamp's statement of the case in any way affects tho objections we have already put forward to his proposals. He thinks that it -would be wise to avoid anything in the shape of a "specific class tax"; but does this objection apply to an income tax, which was instituted first as a war tax in England, and has always been the favourite expedient of Exchequers faced ! by a deficit dne to wars. Germany imposed -heavy taxation is this way before the war, to finance her huge naval and military expenditure; and- Mr Lloyd George has raised the--income tax at Home since the "war began, without en* countering any opposition. As to the .one per cent levy on import's and exports alike, Mr Beauchamp regards this a_ equitable, for the curious reason that "each individual member of the community would not be called upon to pay anything beyond his means." It is perfectly true that the consumer will pay import duty only on what he buys, and, presumably, has money to pay for. "But our point is that any increase in the price of the necessaries of life, however slight, must be unduly burdensome to the great macs of th. people, whp already have to face a serious rise in the cost of living. As to its "equitable" character, is it fair, we may ask, that wage-earners should bo taxed out of their scanty resources on the same basis as the well-to-do? While the worker would pny one per cent extra on his food bill, prosperous financial institutions like the Bank of New Zealand, for example, would pay nothing. Mr. Beauchamp maintain* that a one par cent, tax on imports would not be jtmei on to the oaasuxxx, beauae iA.

is too small a fraction or the cost, and most necessary commodities are sold at fixed standard prices. But in the ftnst p\axx the wholesale importer, when he has to deal with small fractions of a penny for instance, will certainly "make it wboie money" wherever 'be can, to suit himßclf. And secondly, Mr. Beauchamp must be well aware that the chief danger of a small import tax is not that it will add seriously to th. landed cost of imports, but that it will bo used as a pretext for raising the retail price to the consumer out of all proportion 'to the original levy. The principle was illustrated strikingly enough in the case of the Dreadnought tax, and we have no desire to I see that experience repeated at the expanse of tCw workem .4b to exports, we may suggest that a uniform tax of one I par cent would press very ro-xiah harder on the ispHct of kauri gum, whose prices i are falling, than on the producer of but- j iter and meat.and, wool,, whose profits,arc 'growing rapidly. ' -Ir.''*Beaii'ch„rhp holds' that in such a crisis as this class of the people should be called upon to wlty. surely tbe general mass of the people have already been forced to suhmil__t__ heavy sacrifices through the rise in the cost of living. Under the cijcjjmatances we do- not Mr. Beauchamp's solicitude about the sections of the community who would be chiefly affected by a Land Tax and Income Tax. For while we deprecate anything in tbe way of an attempt to penalise a special class, we need hardly point out that our primary producers, having profited greatly by the rise in tbe market value Of ouV exports, arc far better able to contribute to the public i"even.ue than "wage-earners working at a fi,.\ed rate of pay. The cost of living is steadily rising, and the Arbitration Court 'h-xii decided not to modify its awards just now in favour of the workers. We leave it to our readers' sense of justice to decide from what quarter the '"distinct sacrifice" that . Mr. Beauchamp expects everyone to make can most reasonably be demanded-