The General Election

Press, Volume XCVI, Issue 28435, 15 November 1957, Page 3

The General Election

Sir, —In comparing 1949 taxation with current taxation. Mr Connelly rightly uses the purchasing power of the pound as his level, and compares the tax on £BOO with the tax on its equivalent value, £l2BO, and evaluates a 57 per cent, increase in tax payable. This only proves Mr Holyoake's point: although the salary increase is 60 per cent, the tax increase is only 57 per cent. The National tax on £l2BO. as stated by Mr Connelly, is £ll6 2s 6d; plus £66 10s increase or £lB2 12s 6d. Labour’s tax would be £ll6 2s 6d and 60 per cent., equalling £lB5 16s, an increase >f £3 3s 6d or the equivalent >f £1 19s 9d on 1949 values. In >ther words, National's compar- • ble figure for 1949 would be Gll4 2s 9d as against £ll6 2s d. This amounts to just over 'd weekly or at current evaluaion. Is 2d weekly What a sum • argue about. Such is politics. Yours, etc.,

A M. GILROY November 13. 1957.

Sir.—l agree with “Brighton Vage-Earner.” I also have been vondering why the Labour Party iave said so much about the high ost of living. Not one word about high wages. Also there is no need for them to worry about the poor widow. I have Jived on the pension ever since it was £1 a week, and not gone short of anything. —Yours, etc. SATISFIED. November 13. 1957.

Sir,—Miss Mabel Howard has promised to look into the question of the cost of burials. This is a far better inquiry than the underwear subject and waving them before Parliament. I think Mabel would bp far more thought of by many women whatever their political views. Some of the ridiculous women’s wear one sees on display today is to catch the fool’s money. A song runs thus: We all came into this world with nothing and we can’t take anything out. How true. Therefore the cost of burials is ridiculous: so let women help Mabel thresh this out.—Yours, etc. MATER. November 14, 1957.

Sir, —Mr M. Connelly accuses Mr Holyoake of misleading the public when he challenged Labour candidates to pay taxes on this year’s income at 1949 rates. Mr Connelly then starts to do some misleading himself when he draws a big red herring, the purchasing power of the pound, across the subject. He says a man with two children earning £BOO in 1949 would need to earn £l2BO today to have the same purchasing power. In 1949, he says, the man would be taxed £ll6 2s 6d—14.5 per cent, of his total income. Today, the same man earning £l2BO would be taxed £lB2 12s —57 per cent, increase in taxation, he says. But the man’s income has risen 60 per cent, and his taxes now take 14.2 per cent, of his total income. Thus, in Mr Connellys own example, taxation has actually been reduced, not in amount because a man is earning more (83 per cent.) today, but in percentage of total income earned.— Yours, etc.,

RED HERRING. November 14, 1957.