THE FARMERS' POSITION.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18526, 30 October 1925, Page 12

THE FARMERS' POSITION.

TO THE EDITOR 03P "THE. PBEBS." Sir,—After hearing the two candidates who are wooing the Ellesmere electors, I have come to the conclusion that they do not understand, or do not want to understand, the necessary politics of an average farmer. Their speeches have mostly treated on the usual triennial threadbare subjects, that do not vitally concern the farmer, and they appear to leave' his real political requirements severely alone. Both candidates assert that they are out for the benefit of all classes, but they fail to grasp the position that in helping the average farmer, a4d him alone, by giving him the best possible conditions of drawing cash from the soil, they are helping every man and woman in legitimate occupations in New Zealand. Here are a few things that require rectification and are of great moment to the farmers, and an elector would look to his representative to at least attempt to find a cure, but neither candidates appear to trouble about them. I .will put them in question form: (1) Why should companies be allowed to draw their income-tax out of the pockets of their customers before declaring a dividend" Why not tax the declared dividend when apportioned, and thereby reduce the cost of production, and thus| the cost of living?. (2) Why should certain companies be allowed to showa profit of 20 per cent, (not a declared dividend) when a large portion of farmers, through the high cost of production, are awaiting the first opportunity to quit their farms and join the city throng? (3) Why should there be allowed to exist such an army of commercial travellers, who swarm over our roads in motor-convey-ances, who pay no road rates, and add tremendously to the cost of production? (4) Why should money be squandered on education to train an overdose of men for white-collar billets, and trick-of-the-loop jobs, and producing in this country with the aid of the. Arbitration Act' three distributors to one producer? (5) Why not find a means of reducing the heavy medical costs that obtain* in country districts? (6) Why should not the Arbitration Act be altered so that it will not throttle production in • the country? The last question is the most vital of all. It is responsible since its inception for raising the cost of production 100 per cent. The Arbitration Court is doing more damage to the farmer and his workers than the most out-and-out Socialistic Government could do. Jim Smith, boot worker, is given a rise in wages by the Judge because Jim Brown, tailor, has got a rise. Jim Brown, tailor, seeing the Judge has given a rise in wages to Jim Smith, has to get another rise to counteract the rise in the cost of living, and so it goes on in a vicious circle, .and one thing that the country people should know is that every rise given under the Arbitration Act comes out of the pockets of the farmers and his workers and their conditions are lowered. The' rise in wages is not the weak spot in the Arbitration Act: the weak spot lies in the limited output of work when the efficient worker limits his output to the level of the inefficient worker. I have personally known men whom you would not call good workers in the country take up positions in town under arbitration awards, who told me they were compelled to loaf in earning their wages. The Act was brought in to stop strikes. Has it?. Strikes would be immensely cheaper to the farmers than the Arbitration Act. Whoever is responsible in the future of altering, in Parliament, the Arbitration Act for. the betterment of the country people deserves from the country people the erection of a monument higher than the Ai'gliean Cathedral spire.—Yours, etc. A LINCOLN ELECTOB.