THE ATTACKS ON THE BUDGET

Evening Post, Volume LXXVII, Issue 109, 10 May 1909, Page 6

THE ATTACKS ON THE BUDGET

There are so many safe points of attack in the Budget that the undiscriminating onslaught which the champions of vested interests are making upon it seems to us to be a very serious error in tactics. The wild talk about universal plunder tends to weaken the force of the attack upon the points which really deserve rough treatment, and is, therefore, just as ill-judged as that unfortunate boast of one of the Ministers, Mr. C. P. Q. Masterman, that the Budget is "a triumph for Socialism." His other claim for it, that it is "the biggest instrument for social reform ever devifed," is, in point of form, unexceptionable, and has substantial truth in it, but to talk of Socialism is, as the most ardent Radical in the Government party should know by this timej not merely to wave a red rag in the face of the enemy, but to scare many of their own friends. The general charge of the Opposition, that the Government is "utilising the Budget as a means of carrying Socialistic measures, the passage of -which it would otherwise fail to secure," is, practically identical with the foolis-h boast which Mr. Masterman has been endeavouring to explain away. On behalf of the Labour Party, Mr. Pnilip Snowden welcomed the Budget because it proposed to take from the rich to give to the poor, hie object being "to make the poor richer and the rich poorer," while Mr. Balfour, with a more sensitive ear for the sufferings of tho wealthy, declares that "you can almost hear the swish of the scorpions being applied to these unfortunate victims of governmental indignation." After his previous indiscretion it was appropriate that Mr. Masterman should be puo up to repudiate Mr. Snowden that the poor should pay no taxes at all. Mr. Balfour cited some remarkable figures to show that "in the case of one trading firm the new burdens imposed by the proposed taxation would amount to £35,000, or £7000 more than it would if distributed to ordinary shareholders." A later message, which reports the substitution of £2000 for £7000, also throws some doubt upon the subject matter of the comparison ; but evidently the taxation complained of is very dras tic in its operation in this instance, though its exact nature is not indicated. 1 Another matter, on which y^e are left in

still greater uncertainty is the taxation of licenses. It rather looked as though. Mr. Lloyd-George's disclaimer of vindictiveness in any of his proposals was not justified in this case. Mr. Balfour contends that "the license-fee proposals sound the death-knell of every house that was not tied to a brewer," and Mr. Asquith's reply Ikat "the consolidation of licenses and the raising of the price of beer -would ensure the stability and prosperity of the brewing industry," seems rather to give colour to the charge. The price of spirits will be raised owing to the extra duty, but beer, which is not directly touched by the Budget, will, in the Premier's opinion, be similarly affected in order to meet the duties on licenses. Mr. LloydGeorge is threatened with a deluge of deputations on this and other points in his Budget, and has wisely determined to hear them all before coming to a final decision. The one point on which he will not be troubled is the encroachment on the sinking fund, to which Mr. Austen Chamberlaj.ii has justly devoted some severe criticism. Other matters are open to controversy, but this is beyond question a retrograde step.