TAXATION AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY.

Press, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20647, 9 September 1932, Page 16

TAXATION AND ECONOMIC RECOVERY.

TO THE EDITOR OF' THE PKESS Sir, —"Boulevard's" comments on niv letter on the above subject make me feel that I have put the case very badly. There was no intention of whining. My case is that the underlying motive of State ownership is to prevent exploitation of the people by the capitalist and to retain the profits of certain services for the people! We have tried a tremondous experiment on these lines and it has not worked out according to anticipation: quite otherwise. Accordingly, a re-consideration of the whole subject presents to-day our greatest politicul problem. State ownership has had the effect of substituting for the capitalist who takes the responsibility and risk of management that of the capitalist whom the _ State puts in tho entrenched position of having the widest possible guarantee for the safety of hiß capital and the certainty of his profits, and of loading the risk of loss on to the individual taxpayer. In so doing the State renounces tho sure revenue it derives through its powers of taxation. In as much as the State has failed to give the people the advantage of cheaper service, but has instead created the problem of waste through politicul management and .the compilation of high administration expense, it seems to that in loading the country with huge capital losses and in increasing taxation by the necessity for making up large annual losses, it has followed a policy doubly disadvantageous to the people from a financial point of view. With the powers the State possesses of regulation and taxation it seems it might have attained its object of development with due protection of the rights of the people, without sacrifice of a large field for taxation, and without asking its people to shoulder tremeridous financial risks for trading purposes. I believe it is constitutionally un- | just to ask the people to assume such risks, hampered as they are by political management; that it is in fact the function of the State to administer government as simply and inexpensively as possible, and not to conduct huge business enterprises. Enough for it to be the regulating factor. These adventures and the further implication of State ownership and regulation I have outlined have, I claim, added to tho distress of the present difficult times, and are retarding factors to recovery. All I can say if I am wrong, and State control and regulation will bring and have brought prosperity and happiness to the people, is that the thing to do is to get on with the job. If I am right, then why. should all the people continue to suffer for a false political shibboleth? The facts can be arrived at, and if our traditional policy is wrong, it is not "whining" to say our task is to face the issue and clear the decks in the best manner possible to allow of the present difficulties of unemployment being overcome by greater general activity. "Boulevard'/' reference to America's problems is quite in order. Until her wild plunge in stock exchange gambling and her determination xo kill her trade by a peculiarly selfish political policy, she was the most lightly taxed and prosperous of countries. I wish "Boulevard" had referred to England, beset with war. debts, who under her policy of individual enterprise sliowa herself able to rise again to world leadership and whose .recovery has been almost spectacular, since she faced the question of limiting an undue expenditure on social service.—Yours, etc., KOSSALL STREET. September Bth, 1932.