Taxation of War Bonds

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 169, 13 April 1932, Page 11

Taxation of War Bonds

Sir, —It is unfortunate, to say the least of it, that those investors in war bonds at 4$ per cent, which are now subject to taxation, cannot recognise tbe position in a broad light, or perhaps I should mitigate my remark by referring to those investors who are making strong complaint against the action of the Government. No Government would adopt this course unless the position demanded it, and it can be taken for granted that if the Government did not tax this section of investment it stands to reason that they must in other ways increase their other imposts. It is pitiable in the extreme that there should be so many individuals who are still apparently not alive to the position. We have a further £2,000,000 to make up, and how in the name of common sense is this to be done when objections are being made to the action of the Government in the direction indicated above. If action is not taken in this way it must be done in another way, and there is not any more to be said. One hears on all sides that investors would not have taken up war bonds had they known such a course was to be adopted; well, on a moment’s reflection, they might be worse off now had they acted otherwise. The Government would have been bereft of a very large sum of money indeed, and then what would have been the position? It is to be hoped that the Government are not going to be impotent in the matter of reducing to a considerable extent superannuated servants who are drawing ridiculously high pensions. No one desires to interfere harshly with elderly superannuitants. lam referring to those who are drawing over £750 per annum. The opportunity has been given to them to make some suggestion to the authorities that they are prepared to recognise the existing state of affairs and as they have failed to do this it is now left to the "Government to consider what percentage of reduction should be made and probably these highly-remuner-ated, over-remunerated pensioners may be sorry they did not come forward spontaneously. Why should one branch of the population go “scott free”? There should certainly be a graduated “cut” in all pensions over £400.—1 am. etc.. R. F. E. FILDES. Wellington, April 9.