THE BOOT TAX

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 105, 5 May 1915, Page 10

THE BOOT TAX

10 THE' BDtTOB. ' Sir,— lt' is certain that new taxation ■will be imposed next session. It is equally certain that vested interests will work " might and main " — indeed, they are at work underground, already — to place the burden on the mass of tho people through the Customs. .Accordingly, I propose, with your permission, -to- discuss the boot tax, and would ask your readers to bear in mind that the criticism I bring to bear thereon is equally applicable to other imposts. In the year 1913 — the last for which complete statistics are available — there imported into this country 1,382,712 pairs of boote over sise 6, of which the value was £354,465 and the duty paid £105,062, or just under 30 per cent. 'The average cost was 5s Id per pair and the average duty Is 6d per pair, making the average landingcost 6s 7d per pair. Allowing 50 per cent, for handling, selling profit, etc.— by no means an under-esthnate— -we goo £177,232 or 2s 6{<i per pair, and the additional profit on the duty £52.531, or 9d per pair. That is to cay, wo paid an average retail price of 96 10^d per pair for our footwear, when, had there been no duty, we would have paid 7s 7^d per paii 1 , and still leave the dealers the same profit of 50 per cent.! The following tabulated exposition may put the position plainer : — Total. Per pair. £ £ a. d. Value, o.i.f. ... 354,465 0 5 1 Duty ... 105,062 0 16 Profit on cost ... 177,232 0 2 f>£ Profit on duty . . 52,531 0 0 9 Total retail cost £689,290 £0 9 10£ Now, let us discuss the matter from the point of view of the tnuch-talked-of " business man." Let us see how the jnatfcer -works oat a£L& bueiaaß&jjrDDosi^

tion. What benefit did we get for paying £157,593 more for our boots than we ought to have done? There were in this country in 1913 74 boot factories, employing 2072 persons, and paying wages as folloivs : — Wages Weekly Employees, paid. average. & £ s. d. Male ... 1359 16i,244 2 3 4 Female ...' 713 43,519 13 5 Total ... 2072 £207,793 The Year Book shows the capital invested in this pauper industry -was £227,057 ;. the power used 680-b.p. ; the cost of materials, £334,880; and the value of the product, £619,873. I invite that Wonderful person, the bufciness man, as well as the overtaxed £>nd underpaid worker, to peruse the following "bill of costs ":— ,' j £ i Materials used ... *, 334,880 Wagea 207,793 Power, 680-h.p.. at, £&y. £20 13,600 Interest on capital, £227,057, at 6 per cent. '. 13,623 Cost of production 569,896 Gross manufacturers' profit ... 59,977 Value Of product £629,873 In other words, we paid in duty on boots alone in 1913, £105,062. and a profit on that duty of £52,531, and the total of wages paid for the same period was £207,793 ! What have business men to say to that, anyhow? What an impudent imposition is this so-called " pro. tection of native industries"! Yet our Protectionist wire-pullers want to get themselves further buttressed behind a so-callfd Board of Trade composed of — themselves! And the chairman of our non-political bank wants to aggravate the burden by piling the war taxation on top of the lot. Just now we have, perforce, to listen to more than the usrfal nonsense about the State regulation of prices, and the Ma&ney Government has seen fit in its wisdom to set up a Commission to tell us how to fix prices by statute or by Ordor-in-Council. Why, the shore of human history is strewn with the wreckage of such attempts. Prices are fixed by natural laws, provided natural law k allowed free play. It is shortsighted and unfair, however, to sneer at the law of supply and demand when we refuse to allow it a chance. Let us think a moment,- and we shall see that 2072 operatives cannot possibly make boots for a population exceeding a million. The highest public policy requires that we should import boots, and having to import them the importation E-houKf be free. Just allow trade to bo unfettered by import and export taxes, and you will soon realise that ' ' the niggling of tho market," ac good old Adam Smith would say, affords the eureet corrective for high prices. Twenty yeaTs ago i sat opposite Mr. Massey in the House of Representatives, I and heard him denounce the tariff and proclaim himself a follower of Richard Cobden. I recollect well that during that same Parliament, not only Mr. Massey, but his colleague, Mr. Allen, apd his friend and "fond ally," Sir J. G. Wilson, now the " head and front " of the so-called Fanners' ' Union, repeatedly made public profession of Free Trade principles. Where aro their principles now? I uhall watch these Freetraders when the war tax happens along, but, bearing in msnd that during the last election campaign Mr. Massey kow-towed to some Auckland factory girls for their votes, and talked to them the veriest Protectionist nonsense, I expect nothing from him and ho that expects nothing shall not be disappointed. All the'eame it is a disgraceful thing to make every birth in a family the signal for increased taxes, and that is what ' Customs dntie3 mean. What I have said of the boot tax applies to many other taxes, and it is" surely time the working man aesertod himself in this connection.— l am, etc., P. J. O'REGAN.