Taxation

Press, 19 November 1981, Page 20

Taxation

Sir—Please beware of T.R.I.M. In the unplanned private enterprise economy they are.trying to create, it would be possible for a few' people to amass tremendous fortunes (no doubt they see themselves in this role) and perhaps the financial books would balance. However, the cost would be massive unemployment while machines ran the offices and factories. Any welfare benefits would be tiny, and health care would be only for the wealthy. As a result of this poverty there would be a level of violence and crime, that we have never seen before. For .the majority New Zealand would be a nasty place in which to live. — Yours, etc., DAVID VINCENT. November 18. 1981. [This letter is being reprinted because part of it was garbled when it appeared on Tuesday.— Editor] Sir.—The deadline for the return of T.R.I.M. pledges was November 11. Until now my personal comments could have had an unjust influence on other candidates. I can now state clearly and openly my reason for hot taking part in this exercise. The questionnaire calls for integrity on the part

of the candidate and this is good. Unfortunately the organisation has strayed from the basic intention.' The pledges call for specific one-way policy only, be it right or wrong, be it the wish of the majority or minority — not very democratic. ’ Had the movement asked candidates to pledge the implementation of all their particular policy, to its fullest, thereby returning an honest commitment, I feel they would have achieved a major goal for New Zealand. Yours, etc., T. E. LANGRIDGE. Social Credit candidate for Papanui. November 16, 1981. Sir,—As a turnover tax supporter myself, I am very pleased to'see that T.R.I.M. is now taking this excellent tax system to the public arena. But T.O.T. is not the only subject of the candidates’ integritypledges. a fact which seme correspondents seem to be ignoring. For instance, pledge 1 is one that all candidates should sign with pleasure. It is a pledge that as elected representatives, their loyalty to party or international politics will never take precedence over their loyalty to their electorate. These people are supposed to represent us, and I can see no better way for them to prove that they will. There are five integrity pledges for candidates to sigh, and as they are usually very glib on the

issues raised in the pledges, I for one look forward to seeing whether my candidates have signed. I thank T.R.I.M. for providing this service.—Yours, etc.. ALAN C. WILLENS. November 17. 1981. [This letter is being reprinted because part of it was garbled when it appeared on Tuesday.—Editor]

Sir,—As a third-year political science student I am much in sympathy with the T.R.I.M. integrity pledge campaign. Parliament was originally a forum for open debate. M.Ps put forward ideas which were debated, amended and voted upon: policy-making was open with loyalty to electorate and Crown first in an M.P.’s mind. Today, with party politics, the executive branch feeds policy to caucus which chews it over in semi-secrecy; it is digested in Parliament and the results are loaded on top of the poor voter. Party politics and secret government have grown to such an extent that M.Ps no longer represent our views in any direct sense. No organisation like T.R.I.M. can be all things to all men but their pledges show more common sense than any party manifesto I-’ve even had the misfortune to read.—Yours, etc., R. L. MANSON. November 16. 1981.