LABOUR'S FINANCIAL RECORD

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22414, 30 May 1938, Page 5

LABOUR'S FINANCIAL RECORD

VO THI BDITOB OF TEI PEEKS. Sir,—The most striking feature of the speech of Mr Nash at the Lower Hutt was not what he said, but what he left unsaid. He made no reference to the abolition of the sales tax or the reduction in the exchange rate. He did not give any information of the amount of the employment tax collected or what had been expended. He omitted to tell his listeners what amount had been spent on public works, or the source from which that money was obtained. He refrained from any reference to the expenditure, on the housing ocherne. The Re-

serve Bank figures published weekly in the newspapers do not show any item advanced for housing. He gave no indication of the loan raised by the Advances Department at 3$ per cent., as to what amount had bees received and the source from which It was received. He did, not give any information as to where the £5.000.(09 required by Mr Semple to -construct roads for the 13.000 farmers cut 'Off from civilisation would come' from. He quoted the increase in wages as 23.3* per cent. and . the Increased east of living as 124 per cent, bat he not emphasise the fact that this H2§ per cent, is equal to a cut of that amount in the incomes of thousands of people, ipciuding old age pensioners, superannuated.people, and old people, who by thrift had - provided a few pounds a year to assist in old age. Ha stated the public debt had been seduced by £4,300.000, but I doubt if any of his hearers could follow his reasoning or understood bow the qverseas debt was reduced by £2,706.800. He quoted the large increase in the public debt under previous governments, but failed to explain the reasons for this increase, and the valuable assets created by loans. He included in the expenditure the sum of £7.756,000 “other” voles. What did such a large sum include? He also stated that the large amount of income tax collected was accomplished without increasing the rale. Did he forget that the minimum rate was increased from 9d to Is 8d the first year the Labour Government came into office. ’ If he forgets, thousands of medium income people have not. He claimed tliat the control of oranges had reduced the price to the people from six for Is 9d to eight lor a shilling. They are now three for a shilling, so fhe claimed benefit 'ras short lived. Finally, he failed to Indicate how the Budget surplus of £1.600.000 would be utilised towards a reduction in future taxation, but he did indicate that he would distribute £500.000 to farmers. £300.000 of which must come from the taxpayers* pockets. Perhaps some of your readers could explain some of the points I have mentioned.—Yours, etcSIMPLE SIMOW,

May 28. 1938. [Subject to the right of reply of George Ingram, “Dub’s Brother.” Tirst Vote,” “Puzzled.” and “Plain Facts.” this correspondence Is now closed. —Ed.. “The Press.”!