TAXING BACHELORS

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3177, 30 August 1917, Page 6

TAXING BACHELORS

Sir,—ln reply to questions as to whether he is in iavour of a tax on bachelors, 1 have often read of tho member lor Waipawa saying that a man should bo taxed on what he has, not upon what; he has not. Now, a joke is a joke, not. an argument, and if the member abovei mentioned can give any reasonable explanation as to why bachelors should not bo specially taxed, I have never heard it. On tho contrary, I think many arguments can be adduced to show thut bachelors should be specially taxed, and I submit the following:—The future of tho British Empire is to some great ex- » tent dependent on two things, viz., (l> the increase of its population, and '.2) its ability to maintain its present and prewar financial position. Now, as to the first, tho bachelor cannot legitimately claim to be a contributor, and as to the second (which is., of couree, so wide & question that the tax I am dealing with is only a very email item), I think I can show ho does not contribute hie share. Contrast the taxation of the married man with a wife and aay five children, earning .£SOO per annum, with that of the bachelor earning a like sum. The entire salary of tlie married man would go in rent and necessaries, leaving practically no surplus in good years and a positive deficit if he has a bad year with sickness in the family. Supposing, ior argument's sake, that the SoW sgent by the married man carries indirect taxation through the Customs, etc., to the extent of 10 per cent., then he contributes J!SO in taxes, together with incomd tax on ,£2OO.

The bachelor's entire expenditure on necessaries is possibly .£l5O for board and Vlotb.es, etc. The indirect taxation at the above rate would therefore bo .£ls, and he pays tho same income tax as the married man. From this it trill be Been' that the bachelor-pays .£35 less than the married man, and iurther ho is making a gross saving on his incomeof .£350,. as against nothing for the married man, I do not, of course, euggest -that my figures are more than approximate, but they serve as a basis to show thnt the married man is more heavily taxed than tho single man, and in this example tho difference is «£35. The figures also demonstrate that the bachelor has a taxable surplus of .£350. against nil for the married man. Now to return to Mr. Hunter's little joke, that a man should be taxed on what he has, not on what he lias not, I strongly suggest that the Minister of Finance devote his attention to the surplus of .£3SG which the bacHelor has and which .the married man has' not. N°~ should we forget that this surplus is due to the fact that th. bachelor is not doing liis duty to the Empire by getting married and helping to keep up the population so essential to the nation. There are many ways of reaching the bachelor, but one small eimple way that jnjjgests iteolf to me is to reduce or entirely eliminate the .£3OO exemption from income tax in' all cases' of bachelors over, say, 30 years of age. I trust that these few remarks of mine will lead to a clause being put in this year's taxing Acts, to enable some of our heavy taxation to be put on the shoulders of those who ought properly to be carrying the babv. —I am, etc., . ■" POOR MARRIED MAN.