The Dominion. TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1908. THE BURDEN OF TAXATION.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 148, 17 March 1908, Page 6

The Dominion. TUESDAY, MARCH 17, 1908. THE BURDEN OF TAXATION.

Exception is, taken by a Ministerial journal in tie South to a recent, article in whicli we. pointed out tlie astonisliing: growth of the 'taxation per head of the population in this country. It will be remembered that .we'traced the increase in the per capita levy, showing that, with the exception of South Australia, New is the most heavily taxed of '. the Australasian States, and pointed , out that although the rapidly increasing, tax is collected from a rapidly increasing population, the public debt has been increasing; faster /than., anything else, excepting the, Premier's fondness for spending money., . We are now told that' our figures and the inferences we drew from them are' " an elaborate fiction," that' " there has been no increase of taxation in fhe'sense our contemporary intends to imply," and, finally, 1 that; our article is "positively dishonest,'' and "merely contemptible." Statements so /positive, and' language so strong, as those of our critic, are not generally used by a sober controversialist unless he occupies an unassailable position. The Southern journal's indignation; one would suppose, ought t to be supportable by figures destructive of our own,, or at least destructive of the contention to which they are opposed. As a matter of fact, our contemporary merely confuses the issue by arguing that there was " actually a substantial decrease - in., the rates" of : the Customs duties between 1899 and 190G, that there has been,no increase, in the income tax, although the. • amount collected has increased from . £115,480 to £277,867, -and that, " as a matter of plain fact, there'has been . a very material reduction in taxation' : under the Liberal Government, 'in , railway and postage rates, as well as in Customs duties." The point of our article was that although the taxation per head had' increased from £3 16s. lOd. in 1900 to; ■ £4 9s. lOd. iii 1907, there. has been nothing to show'for it in a paying off, of our monstrous public debt. This ; fact remains unaffected by the asser--1 tions of the " Lyttleton Times." l

There may have been a decrease in the rates of Customs duties, but as the amount of Customs duties paid per head has increased from £2 13s. 3d. in 1899 to £3 4s. 9d. in 1906, it is clear that the Government has collected more per head from the people of the Dominion in 1906 than it did in 1899. It has, as we have said, .continued to wring a tax from the people, that it should have reduced. It not only collects a greater total amount through the Customs, but a greater amount per- head of every man, woman , and child in New . Zealand. When . ; we complained that the Government was extracting, for dissipation in railway • finance, a greatly increased toll from the pocket of each taxpayer, we did not suggest, nor could we be read as having suggested, that the increase has been due to an increased rate. Our.'contention was, and is, that the increase is bad enough.even at the present rate; more especially as the Government are not using the largely increased revenue to reduce or keep down the public debt, .but are merely taking advantage of the unnaturally high taxation returns •to ; increase the extravagance of their expenditure. , Accompanying the increased - levy. per head of the j>opula-: tion, the total public indebtedness also increased between 1899. and 1906 by about £16,000,000. With - normally good finance the steady increase in taxation per head would mean the reduction of the public debt. But the' truth of the matter is that the rotten financial administration of the railways and the limitless extravagance of the Government require every that can be wrung from a, greatly overtaxed public. With the increase of trade, and the advance of production . under an endless sequence of prosperous seasons, the. public should be looking for real remissions, of all kinds of taxation. Instead, they receive no adequate remissions. The reduction in postal and railway, rates is; illusory. ; What the public is given in ' reduced railway fares and postal rates is taken away in other directions. How, otherwise, does it come about that this taxpayer .contributed £4' 9s. lOd. in 1907;, where :he only contributed £3 16s. 10d. in 1900?; What is there to show for this impost? i" An ./increase of' about £16,000,000; in the public indebtedness. Our Southern critic, it . will be observed, has not only.''not justified its abusive adjectives, but 'has not even ■ torched, the real point of our article.