THE NATIONAL INCOME.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 271, 15 November 1935, Page 6

THE NATIONAL INCOM E.

MISLEADING THE PUBLIC

(To the Editor.) I am afraid that Mr. J. \Y. Arthur , ! 8 in Wednesday's "Star" have missed the" < as badly as his Latin, and it would be to refrain from using either unless he stands them. He sums up his argument the conclusion that, of tho national in. ™ roughly £100,000,000 per annum •£?*< ! sons absorb £7,500,000, or £50,000 «*■**" annum." It is easy to guess how he kT ** pletely misunderstood tho returns from ?•* he appears to be quoting, even thouk does not need to trouble to look th but your readers will support my to his statement that "the onus to d the facts lies upon those who care and T* to challenge them." I, for one, will dar challenge his statement that there aSisi persons in New Zealand absorbing £sn«2 each per annun. As the publiehed Teh regarding income usually make no dieting between individuals and firms, whether uriit partnerships or public companies, the u* with shareholders numbering anythin* f flvo to five thousand each, your readers "■J be quite justified in refusing to believe tk 1 there are any persons in New Zealand i alone 150, lifting £50,000 each per gl unless lie can furnish you with a etatenuf to that effect from the Commissioner of Tat himself. In the meantime such wild coed done as that of Mr. Arthur only eervot mislead the electors at a time when it ■ most important that they should hear nothi,! but facts on all financial subjects. CROESUS,