TAXING CHILDREN'S WAGES

Auckland Star, Volume LXXII, Issue 169, 19 July 1941, Page 6

TAXING CHILDREN'S WAGES

t opportunity to put "Once Labour, Isevor Again, - ' on the right track. He quotes a 16-vear-old bo* as earning 32/2 under his so«alled Sham Labour Government," an! through various taxes, receiving 28/4. If 'Once Laoour" has anv recollection of pre-Labour conditions he should remember that the same boy would have received the princelv sum of from 10/ to 12/6. Tax-fret °L c °urse, but certainly a conside? able difference. Also, his job was good only so long as the employer was unable to find a boy who was willing to work for less in order to get the job. His union to-dav will protect him from that. Furthermore, and finally, as one who has been through similar experiences, I would point out that this same young man is better cared for by State benefits when necessity arises, through accident or illness, than ever before in the country's history. Therefore I would urge "Once Labour" to consider carefully before making up bis mind to discard the benefits and improvements wrought in the workingman s life by the first Government to legislate "for the people." GET DOWN TO EARTH.

r Quite agree with what "Once .Labour, Never Again," says, but I can go one better. My son left a job where he was earning 30/ weekly at 1 o years of age to join the Postal Department as telegraph messenger, commencing at £1 per weck. Hehas been there 17 months and receives r?' weekly. Now they have made him do postman's delivery work a man s job—and he only gets the same 20/ weekly. What a fine example for a Labour Government to boast of! GOOD-BYE LAEOUR.