PRESS COMMENT ON BUDGET

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26394, 12 April 1951, Page 7

PRESS COMMENT ON BUDGET

Need Seen To Reduce State Spending

(Bee. 10 p.m.) LONDON. April 11. The new texes in the field of business profits alone were sufficient to make the Budget a bad one, says “The Times” in a leading article to-day, commenting on the Budget introduced in the House of Commons yesterday. “The Times” added: “The increase in income tax, though a much lesser evil in degree, shares the same sort of defect and carries comparable dangers in the tong run.” Mr Gaitskell had the choice of reducing Government expenditure or Increasing taxation. “It is open to argument whether it would not have been better to risk further foliation rather than seek—probably without suceaaa—to restrain it by measures such as these. Without doubt, it would hgve been infinitely better to reduce expenditure by that amount rather than to resort to taxes which qgnnot but be destructive," adds “The Times.”

The “Daily Mail” says: “Mr Gaitskell tried to please everybody. It is an unrensational, mediocre Budget" Mr Gaitskell was forced to set about the task like Old Mother Hubb«rd, because previous Chancellors had taxed everything taxable. The “Daily Express” says: "Mr Gaitsfcell introduced a Tory Budget. The increased tax on company profits is steep, but there will be little occasion for sobbing, The majority of companies will be able to bear it. Their profits have been running at good, high rates for some years. Mr Gaitskell made a brilliant maiden speech. He I* to be congratulated on his performance, Before his life is through he will make a first-rate Chancellor of the Exchequer in a Tory Government." The "Daily Telegraph." in a leading article, said Mr Gaitskell’s speech undoubtedly increased his political stature. His style was conspicuously free from party rancour. He made no attempt to court electoral favour or to appease the more vociferous of his own rank and file; On the whole, the taxpayer came out more lightly than he feared. Approving the changes in the National Health Scheme and increase in pensions, the "Daily Telegraph” said- " Nor can exception be taken to the changes in purchase tax.” It criticised profit taxes and foe withdrawal of the allowance for depredation. Mr Gaitskell had courageously proclaimed the lack of prejudice against profits, but hardly lived up to his professions. At the sime time, he could be commended for refraining from such specifics as a “once and for all" capital levy. The “Daily Herald” said: "We agree with Mr Gaitskell’s description of his Budget as honest, sound, and fair. The charges for dental work and optical »ervlces are regrettable, but we think most folk will accept them as reasonable in the nation’s financial circumstances. 7 ’ The "News Chronicle” says that in a competent but uninspiring way, Mr Gaitskell presented a competent but uninspiring Budget. “The payments for health services will widely be recognised as a sensible and bold proposaleven if it does cost the Government Mr Bevan’s services, as it ought to do if words have any meaning.’’ The “Financial Times” called it "an inflationary Budget." It added: "Although Mr Gaitskell has shown balance from foe political point of view, from the economic point of view there is not the slightest doubt that the chief tax increases will raise costs all round.”