Taxation for War Purposes.

Press, Volume LI, Issue 15173, 11 January 1915, Page 6

Taxation for War Purposes.

When Mr I.loyd George brought down his*- War Budget, the.-, was very little in tho way of criticism of his taxation proposals, although, of course, a great deal might have been .said. It was agreed by both the Liberal and Opposition parties ihat there should be nothing iv the .vhapo of discrimination amongst ciaLsse., and that, since all were affected by the war and all concerned in the issue of it.'all should contribute to its cost. This was almost taken for granted; the most that was suggested in the way of discrimination—and here again all parties were agreed—was that the people who were well oft ought to contribute more than others, not only absolutely, but even relatively. The principle' that should

govern such taxation was emphasised in a debate two days after tho taxes were announced; the occasion being afforded by Mr Arthur Henderson, the wellknown Labour leader, who suggested that not enough was asked lor from the payers of super-tax. "They were, '"after all." he. said, "the persons who "had most at-.take in this crisis, and " if the Chancellor had decided to get "the £3,00U,U00 from them which ho ■• proposed to get from the extra tax '* on tea he thought he would have been "'acting very wisely.'' This observation was the subject of weighty protests by Mr Austen Chamberlain and Mr l.loyd George. "It was impossi- " hie,'' Mr Chamberlain pointed out, " to measure the suffering th_t differ- '' ent classes in this country would have "to endure if. our Armies and Navies "were not successful.- In those days " all the people of a country stood or " fell together.'' Mr I.loyd George was more emphatic. He said he declined to admit that the issue of tho war concerned the super-tax classes more than any other class. "Ho could " not think that any class of the com"munity was more deeply concerned

••'with the ultimate issue of tho war " than the working classes. They were "as deeply interested in victory for "the British .amis as any class of the 'community." Mr Henderson explained that lie only meant that those who had most property had most to lose, and Mr Lloyd George., in accepting tho explanation, added this very cogent observation: "I should have "thought that there was nothing more " important than liberty and national "integrity .to every class." Iv due courso, no doubt, the people, of New Zealand, as Mr Massey has hinted, may be called upon to nay fresh taxation to defray the charges entailed by our part in the war. If, and when, that eventuality comes to be faced, we trust that the sound principle that all must pay Avill govern the arrangements that ate made. There aro possibly sonic people who will seek to localise the burden— to make one class hear all or. at any rale, most of tho charges. To some politicians—happily Britain has noue of these in any position of responsibility

—the temptation is irresistible, on occasions like these, to work injustice in order to'be able to tell tho majority of th© people that they havo ©scaped paying a penny. It is impossible to conceive a British statesman of either, of the two main parties taking pride in telling the general body of voters that the military or . naval expenditure incurred ou behalf of the country a_ a whole was cleverly levied on a small and limited section of the community.