The Budget

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28630, 5 July 1958, Page 3

The Budget

Sir,—What has been revealed in the Budget has been fully expected by me ever since conscription was voted in by people who talked about it being “good for them”—but never themselves, though. In addition to conscription, we have the 40 hour week, double and treble pay, ten times more holidays than 50 years ago; and all on a relatively meagre population. Then we have thost people who would not work more than two to three days a week, for fear they would have to pay income tax. And irony of ironies, these people tell me I am lucky on a war pension. Well, if I had been able to pay income tax I would have been a long way better off today.—Yours, etc, R. M. THOMSON. July 3, 1958.

Sir, —If it were not go serious it would really be funny, this “cataract” of comment on Mr Nordmeyex-’s Budget. The two opinions that are worthwhile are those of “The Walrus” and John Eddy, of Melbourne. For quite a while I have advanced somewhat diffidently the view that we in New Zealand were spending recklessly and that boom prices for our exports would not last for ever. The reactions, regardless of political labels or social status of my audience, were invariably the same—scorn and derision. Being a Jeremiah did not afford me any great measure of satisfaction. I was sure even with my very limited supply of common-sense that “what goes up must come down” even the Sputnik! Much as it grieves me, sir, I must sign myself.—Yours, etc., I TOLD YOU SO (N.Z.) July 3, 1958.

Sir,—Listening to the- Budget debate what impresses me most is the proposed victimisation of the thrifty, and the seeming hatred towards those people who draw universal superannuation, as expressed by members of the Labour , Government. As the result of the . Budget proposals is the exact opposite of Labours election promises, I wonder if it would be possible to have a Dominion wide petition presented to the Governor-General praying for the dissolution of Parliament. —Yours, etc., SUPERANNUITANT. July 3, 1958.

Sir, —There was once a time when many descent, honest people thought the Labour Party stood for the rights of the worker and the little man. We thought the men following in the footsteps of Michael Joseph Savage and Peter Fraser could be trusted to work for us and to guard our interests. In is very puzzling to me how we working people should be the ones to suffer from this Budget. While it is true the child allowance has gone up, would it not have been better to do without this and that big tax rebate? Then some of this overseas borrowing could have been done away with and all this other dreadful taxation. This Budget has been a dreadful shock to many of us who will never be sure whether we can trust Labour’s election promises again. These taxes are not going to affect the well-to-do so much as the poor old working man and his family. It just does not seem possible that a Labour Government can have done this to us.—Yours, etc, SHOCKED. July 2, 1958.

Sir,—l don't think "Onward” need worry about the increased child allowance and producers of the future as the nation's greatest asset We don't need much encouragement to populate The “Baby Boom" is over. What we need right now is money and work. Our schools are bursting at the seams now.—Yours etc MARRIED INDEPENDENT July 3, 1958.

Sir.—By what process of reasoning did Mr Nordmeyer decide that it was more of a "luxury"— almost a criminal luxury, it would appear—for us to have our noggin of spirits together in the evening, and entertain our friends similarly when they drop in, and to have our week-end jaunt in the car. than it was for the milk-bar cowboy to have his motor-cycle?— Yours, etc., DARBY AND JOAN. July 2, 1958.