TAXATION BURDEN.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1324, 30 December 1911, Page 6

TAXATION BURDEN.

POSITION MIS-STATED BY VERNMENT"OFFICIAL" FIGURES ANALYSED. WHAT ARE THE TACTS? (CuNTIIIIIUTI'.P.) Ministers of the Crown in Now Zealand have recently developed a fatal facility for discrediting their own statements by protesting over much. The fact is reflected in (he ollicial facts and figures published from time to time. A case in point: is furnished in the most recent section of the Ollicial Year Book, the advance sheets of which were issued a few days ago. four tables purport to give details of the revenue dc.iived from taxation, direct and indirect, for tin: ten-year period 1901-2 to l!t!0-ll. Dealing with the figures for tho last two years of the decennial period, the writer proposes to show how very little dependence can bo placed upon Ihe olliciil sta lenient of the position as it alfoets taxation in this country. Accoiding to the first table, appearing on page litis (Section XXIII, Public finance), the total amount raised bv taxation during the years 11110-11 and 1909-10 was as un--11110.11 .£■1,837,322 1!I0:)-I0 4,180,510 lncrcaso for 1010-11 £GSG,SOG On pages 086 and 087 (here are other table.-, giving an analysis of the revenue collected by means of direct and indirect luxation. ThiM) tables arn clearly and demonstrably in disagreement with the I'm.-I, although it is only by comparing and checking the figures that (ho discrepancy, becomes apparent. Thus, dealing with indirect taxation, tho table on page Ii8(i shows that. Customs duties advanced bv £356,708, that is from £2,671,121 in 11110 to .1:3,027,82!) in 1911. Excise duties again advanced from JC115.3C7 to .£llß,lllO, or bv £2731, the increase in Excise and Customs duties being thus .£3511,1311. This is apparent in the totals, which arc given as under.— 1910-U .£3,145,929 1909-10 2,75G,490 lncrcaso for 1910-11 £359,439 Now, taking the revenue derived from direct taxation, the table on page 657 shows that while the land tax receipts decreased bv £13,517, tho income tax collections advanced from £31G,835 to .£407,235, that is bv £90,400. "Other taxes" advanced from £131,1121 to £755,880, or by £320,050. The receipts from direct taxation, therefore, show a net increase of £397,812, as follows :— £ Increased Income Tax DO, 100 Other taxes (increase) 320,950 Total increase 111,359 less decreased Land Tax revenue 13,517 Net increase £397,812 This, again, is apparent in the totals given in this table, which advanced from .£1,391,026 ill 1909-10 to £1,791,838 in 1910-11. On these figures, therefore, the increased receipts in tho shape of taxation revenue for 1910-11 were: Indirect taxation £350,439 Direct taxation 397,812 Making a total tf £757,251 Yet, in the summary of taxation, given in the first Tear Book table, tho total appears as £050,800 only. It is necessary to be thus particular in reciting tho facts, .because it unfortunately happens, in these davs of degenerate Liberalism, that, whenever official facts and figures, supplied by the Go.-ernment of Nc-y Zealand, are called into question, the cry is at once raised that deliberate and wilful misrepresentation is being entered upon for party purposes. Before the writer finishes, lie intends proving tint the misrepresentation is all on the other side, for there are even graver discrepancies apparent in tho figures supplied by Sir Joseph Ward, in his Financial Statement onSepteinber 8 last, and those now given in the advance sheets of .tho,.Year Book, issued. just before Christmas'. Just why it should bo deemed necessary, to conceal the truth upon this question of taxation tho writer is not able to say. Tho fact remains—and it is a stirtling one— that, between the Prime Minister's Budget summary of taxation receipts, and the Year Book's statement of tho position, there is a discrepancy of more than a quarter of a million. The Year Book tablo (page 685), as already indicated, places tho total amount of revenue derived from taxation during 1910-11 at £4,837,322. But it is evident from the figures supplied by Sir Joseph Ward in his Financial Statement that this by no means covers the ground. Five items alone in (hat Statement make up a total of over £5,000,000. They are as follow:— £ Customs receipts ...; 3,027,829 Stamps/"Stamps Department) 819,831) • Land Tax 028,723 Incomo Tax 407,235 . Beer Duty ~...' 118,100 Total £5,001,720 This, moreover, takes no account of Registration and other fees (£88,305), Marino (£42,918,), and Miscellaneous receipts, amounting to £200,0119, a proportion at least of which should certainly bo included under the heading of taxation. And yet, again, no account is taken of tho increased fares over the railways, imposed as part of his taxation schome by the Minister for Finance under the 1909 Budget, and classed by Sir Joseph Ward himself as increased taxation. To meet an estimated' increased expenditure of £330,000, the Prime Minister said in the House, on November 10, 1909:—"I propose to obtain from the altered system of death duties an additional £150,000; by abolishing tho break in tho long-distance ■ mileage rates upon the railways, making the rates uniform to Id: per mile secondclass and lid. per mile first-class, £100,000 per annum; by the adjustment of the income tax, making it a graduated one, £'80,000; by imposing 1 per cent, additional upon tho true value of all dutiable goods, £50,000; by charging 2.! per cent, on the total receipts of race clubs, £3S,000; from the banks, £30,000. This gives a total incrcaso of revenue, of £1(8,000, leaving a balance of £118,000not, in my opinion, too large a sum in order to provide for unforeseen expenditure." In view of the, figures quoted, and of Sir Joseph Ward's statement, as also of the discrepancy occurring in the tables already referred to, what, possible reliance can be placed upon the Year Book statement of the position? If the Prime Minister's figures are correct, (and dealing with Hie one item of Stamps Department, £81!l,83'.l, we, may point out that Sir Joseph Ward has himself discriminated between those collections and the Postal Department receipts amounting to JolßJlOlii, (hen Iho Year Book is clearly at fault. If Sir Joseph Ward's figures are incorrect—but it is out: of the question to accept such an. alternativethen his reputation as a financier goes by the board altogether. And here the question arises: "Why has this been doner" The answer is suggested by the per capita revenue table (page GfiO), appearing in the Year Book, which places (he revenue per head of (ho population derived from taxation during 11110-11 at £} 16s. lid., instead of as it should be, considerably over A's. Sir Joseph Ward's figures make it easily more than Hint amount, and Mr. Arthur Myers, in speaking upon the Financial Statement, placed it at £5 Ss. 7d. As reported in Hansard, be said:—"l find on examining the figures for the years ending March 31, 11)01 and 1010, that the total taxation per head had eertainlv increased. . . . The total taxation in 1911 was .£5 Bs. 7d." No attempt lias, thus fur, been muds to controvert Mr. Myers's statement, which has been quoted far and wide. The Year Book figures are grossly misleading; it would appear (hey have been made designedly so. Why? The public, have a right to know the reason lor (he jugglery of figures that has taken place; they have a right lo know, moreover, who is responsible for this attempt In mislead lliom upon n question that vitally anTei-ls their welfare. It is evident the Ward Government has become alarmed at its own unenviable reputation of having made New Zealand llio most heavily (axed country, per head of population, in Hie British Umpire, It is further apparent that it has "cooked" the ollicial records in its vain aliempl to prove that (he per capita taxation is some 12s. or 13s. per head lighter than it reaily is. And, having done that, it has r,uno more to discredit, its own "Fads" and "Figures'' Ihan its opponents could havo accomplished by many mouths of fiery disputations,