TAXATION

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21533, 24 July 1935, Page 18

TAXATION

TO THS EDITO* OS THB SMBB. Sir,—l have neither time nor ability to enter into a controversy on the subject of taxation, but would like to reply to "Another Taxpayer's" letter in your issue of July 20, in which he says that I am misrepresenting the case. If that is so, it is unintentional, seeing that I have voted Reform, or Conservative party, or any other name it, the party, may be known by ever since I had a vote, which is 41 years ago; but I would like to remind "Another Taxpayer" that he is guilty of the same offence when he says the war debt was £82,000,000. May I be allowed to inform him that it was £70,000,000. Perhaps £12,000,000 is only a small matter, but it adds to taxation, and has to be paid for. During the 18 years that the Mas-sey-Coates party were in power the total amount of debt increased by £170,000,000, including the £70,000,000 war debt, which confirms my previous letter as to the extravagance of that party, seeing that the most of the development of this country ended with the Sec don Government, and none, or very little, of that public works expenditure was non-interest bearing, which is more than can be said of some of the public works expenditure of recent years. The same recklessness is going on under the Coalition Government that was rampant the three years Mr Coates was in power. When that gentleman was Minister for Railways, the number of additional departments he created with high salaried officials was scandalous, and again this last year the same applies. The number of additional boards with high-salaried officials—for instance, the two recent boards established presumably to help the farmer with their handful of members, who draw between them salaries amounting to £12,000, exclusive of travelling expenses, besides office expenses. And why increase the membership of the Broadcasting Board from three members to seven, at £250 each?—an increase in expenditure from £#so to £1750, besides travelling expenses. In reference to my remarks about Mr Coates's visit to London over the meat question, "Another Taxpayer" considers Mr Coates's expenditure will be met many times over from the benefits derived. It is no time for Messrs Forbes and Coates to go tripping home to London with their large bodyguards of officials costing the country thousands in expense. Mr Forbes and a private secretary would have been ample, and as a matter of courtesy to the British Government he should have gone. Do you wonder why the taxatioi is so high in this country" My income has been cut 25 per cent, at least, presumably to help the country in its time of need. Of that I am not complaining, but I strongly object to its being frittered away in ministerial trips to London and Australia, and given away to a number of highlypaid board members that do not justify their existence. I have had to work iiard. for a number of years to

get the little I have to live on.—Yours. etC " TAXPAYER. July 22, 1935. ! | ' ;