General Election

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30287, 13 November 1963, Page 12

General Election

Sir,—For age beneficiaries Labour extends the allowable income -to £7 a week, and reduces the benefit, to £7 in cases where the £7 is earned. This gives with one hand and takes away with the other. National will extend the allowable income to £4 and no reduction in the benefit, and Social Credit to £5 without reduction of the benefit. Those concerned would do well to notice the difference between the parties. and particularly Labour s offer which, to say the least, is a doubtful benefit. The hand-out by Labour to age beneficiaries should be compared with that to people on secondary employment. The reduction to 3s in the tax to these people could mean between 20s and 30s a week, in addition to the 9s a week, if income tax allowance is increased to £l5 for a married couple.—'Yours, etc.. H. MALONEY. November 12. 1963

Sir,—lncreases in wages should be balanced by increases in inteerst on money. Put another way, if wages have increased six times since 1900 then interest ought now to be 30 to 35 per cent. When interest values do not balance wages we have injustice and disorder. Call it Millson’s Law if you like, but no-one has proved me wrong.— Yours, etc., G. MILLSON. Blenheim, November 10, 1963. Sir. —C. F. Saunders is to be congratulated on his spirited attack on the Labour-National "see-saw.” Intelligent voters, according to the Monday editorial, are supposed to choose either a party which pays for "tax reductions” by massive borrowing at an average rate of £1 million a

week, or a party which thinks it can boost New Zealand forwards while simultaneously reducing tax rates. I was bred a Tory, got an A pass in chemistry, and went to work for a foreign-capital-dominated firm which, I found, always insisted on increasing its profit margins by using more cheap ingredients than I considered scientifically desirable. Thus disillusioned, I joined a socalled “research group” of the Labour Party, but found I was the only one who did any “research” to speak of. Such smug complacency finally convinced me that the established parties are unwilling to adjust themselves to the modem age.—Yours, etc., MARK D. SADLER. • November 12. 1963.

Sir.—Your condemnation of the Social Credit policy in your leading article was most uncalled for and in boxing terms below the belt and definitely not cricket. Several of your own statements were wrong, especially when you say the inflation after the war in Germany and France was Social Credit under another name. You refer to their policy as having an air of unreality. You cannot deny that banks do create credit from nothing and charge interest for it as only a fifth of the money used is in silver and notes, while the other four-fifths is created. Can you deny that the Social Credit Party has the best monetary policy and so far has been the only party to mention our national debt, which has climbed under the old orthodox policy of borrow-or-bust to the colossal sum of £970,000.000 and needs £35,000,000 of our hard-earned overseas funds to pay for it and one wonders how much longer can this go on for.—Yours, etc., S. W. HICKMOTT. November 12, 1963.

Sir,—“Mainlander” does not attempt to deny my assertion that the Social Security Act was opposed at its inception. Any additions to ths act which may have been made by the National Government have been purely a matter of political expediency. With regard to “Mainlander’s” remark on the “length of my political nose,” I can assure him that the length of my political memory is my measuring rod. I am old enough, much as I hate to “hark back,” to remember the early 1930’s when the blackest page in New Zealand political history was written. I also remember, with gratitude, that the first Labour Government restored my dignity, and that of thousands more from all walks of life, immediately it took office. I affirm, had there been

'no Labour Government, there would have bean no social security as we know it today.—Yours, etc., T.W.C. November 12, 1963.

Sir,—Congratulations on your leader, “Labour and the Banks,” in which you “debunked” yet another Labour Party banking suggestion. It is about time that the monetary fanatics you refer to realised that banking should be left to bankers, just as any other vocation is left to its experts to handle without interference. The Labour Party does itself little credit by associating the party with such ideas and will deserve what it gets. There need be no fear that banks in New Zealand are other than fully competitive and efficient organisations, giving a first-class service at low cost —Yours, etc., HANDS OFF. November 12, 1963.