Mr Holyoake’s Address

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29245, 1 July 1960, Page 8

Mr Holyoake’s Address

Sir, —Your footnote, “They did” (reduce the rate of taxation), is hardly correct' They did not reduce the average rate over the whole period. They (the Tories) raised the rate from 2s 6d to 3s in 1954. They reduced this by 20 per cent, in 1955 and by 10 per cent, in 1956. This gives an average of Id over 2s 6d so that the rate for the whole period was emphatically not reduced. To “Remembering,” I may say my. cheque is slightly larger (same gross income).’ ”S. Ann” is still harping on the £2l million “giye-away.” What about the 25 per cent, rebate and. the virtual remission of social security levy to the self-employed? These promises were designed to help the wealthier classes while the total remission of income-tax up to £lOO really did help those on lower incomes.—Yours, etc., K A. F. PALMER. Waimate, June 28, 1960.

[When the National Party became the Government, income tax was at the rate of 2s 6d in £l, .plus 15 per cent, less £lO. with a personal exemption of £2OO. Some minor reductions were made in . 1950, but in 1951 the surcharge was reduced to 10 per cent, and the. rebate was increased to £l5. In 1952 the surcharge was reduced to 5 per cent. In 1953 the personal exemption was raised to £230 and the surcharge was reduced to 2J per cent. In 1954 the personal exemption was raised to £375, the 2J per cent, surcharge was abolished, and the rate was raised to 3s. the net effect of which was to reduce the tax on low incomes very substantially. In 1955 20 per cent, of the tax calculated on the 1954 basis was rebated. The only break in the continuous reduction of income tax was the following year when the- rebate was reduced to 10 per cent., but that still left the effective rate of tax on low incomes much less than it had been in Labour's term. In 1957 the rebate was increased to 25 per cent., with a limit of £75. Mr (Palmer is in error in talking of a virtual remission of social security tax’ to the selfemployed. They were left by statute in substantially the position they had been in before.—Ed., “The Press.”]

Sir,—Mr A. F. Palmer wonders where tax reductions could possibly be made. Any marl with not more than two children should be able to keep them without leaning on the State. Why should the wealthy get that and other hand-outs? Peep into any public bar before 6 and between North Cape and Bluff, and see how the child benefits are spent. Likewise the racecourse. Benefits should be confined, even increased, to those in need of them. Admissions to Avondale racecourse are 6s and Is. So you can walk in and out five times for the price of a packet of tobacco. WJiy? The A.R..C. increased admission in one section from Is 6d to 2s 6d, but that is only greed. Taxes are not involved. Ten shillings would not stop them from going. Let me inform Mr Palmer that in Auckland area there are hundreds out of steady work to-day. —Yours, etc.. June 27, 1960. H. J. ORR.