The Budget

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28629, 4 July 1958, Page 3

The Budget

Sir,—lt is regrettable to see In the press so much harping back to the election and so many purely emotional criticisms of the Budget. Perhaps there was an element of bribery by Labour in the election, but National’s whole policy was one of taking from the future to impress and bribe people with false prosperity in the present. They financed on borrowed money when they should have had the courage to raise taxes and pay as they went. They governed at a time of temporarily high income, all of which was squandered without thought for the future. They left a mess of debt and lack of foresight for Labour to take over. Naturally we don’t like increased taxes, but the answer is to work and improve production and real prosperity, not to go back to the illusions and dreams recklessly and irresponsibly encouraged by the National Government Yours, etc., M. D. SADLER. July 3, 1958.

Sir,—“Mr Nash has a lot of promises to keep,” said a schoolgirl, after the elections. Naturally he expects us to provide the money for him to keep these promises. But why this savage taxation of transport? It would be difficult to devise any tax more widespread in its application, more certain to increase the cost of living, to reduce savings, and to hit low-income people and pensioners harder than the more well-to-do. Why is the betting industry not subject to increased tax, instead of motor vehicles and petrol? Is the T.A.B. sacrosanct? If higher betting taxes would transfer business to the bookmakers, . why not license bookmakers and tax their business on* the same terms as the T.A.8.? Why not have a registration fee or tax on race horses, at least as heavy as on trade motor vehicles? Motor transport is an essential. Racing and the T.A.B. are luxuries.— Yours, etc., ARTHUR LUSH. July 3, 1958.

Sir, —In reply to “Married Independent,” I would like to ask him if he has ever tried to feed and clothe seven children on the present wages of a farmhand. The family benefit makes all the difference to a large family. He says father and mother will be able to use some of it foY beer and smokes; let me tell him that is not so in many families. Our children drink over a gallon of milk a day, and all babies have at least six bottles a day, making over two and a half quarts. Let him rear a large family before complaining about family benefits. —Yours, etc., A MOTHER. July 2, 1958.

Sir. —R. C. Machirus should be like the clean-living man with six children and a bicycle, as the Walrus puts it. But seriously, the Christian, whom I presume the correspondent is driving at, is so happy in his own heart that he has no need for extra pleasures, and particularly of the more harmful sort. On the other hand, he probably gives a corresponding amount of his money to support missions and to keep a church going for when our friend wants to be married or buried.—Yours, . ” CONFIRMED WOWSER. July 1, 1958.

Sir,—“What a Brutal Budget” makes me laugh. I’ve heard that phrase before. Very brutal—cutting out a man’s beer, tobacco and punning around—aadiatic

really, No doubt our poor deluded Minister of Finance intended “the family man to wipe” the above for h;s children’s sake, but actually what he has dme is to send the victimised males on a real bender—drowning their sorrows. Hotel takings were up all over town during the week-end. He has made a mistake. The family man will not cut out his beer, tobacco and running around just because it costs more. Not him—he will curse and swear at the Government and go on just as usual—perhaps have an extra drink or two because of his now financial difficulties. The women and children still pay.—Yours, etc., ONLOOKER. July 1, 1958.