THE FINANCIAL DEBATE

Evening Post, Volume XCIV, Issue 49, 27 August 1917, Page 6

THE FINANCIAL DEBATE

Sir Joseph Ward wound up the financial debate on Friday in a spirited speech. He spoke with a confidence and a cheerfulness which were fully justified by the position. Members were in a fractious, not to say rebellious, mood when he brought down his Budget. They took three weeks t» discuss it, and nobody can say that this was; not time enough for the venting of all their feelings. Yet the Budget has suffered very little from any hostile criticism, and members themselves are in a much better "frame of mind from having had a good fling, and from having got into close touch with the real business of the session. The Budget, though it makes more exacting demands than that of last year, is rea-lly a much better Budget than its predecessor, and is so recognised even by those whose already heavy burdens it has considerably increased. It is based on principles which are almost universally conceded to be sound, the only differences of opinion being on questions of detail and degree. Sir Joseph Ward pointed out in his reply that only,a few of the proposals in his very extensive programme had been adversely criticised, and that these were not all the most material parts of it.

The case was very different last year. Both the excess profits tax and the ungraduated addition to the graduated income tax were strongly . condemned. They were plainly wrong in principle, as the Finance Minister himself has candidly admitted. In the interesting memorandum from the Commissioner of Taxes whieh he read to' the House on Friday, the excess profits tax is condemned as "too erratic and inequitable," too difficult to estimate, and requiring too much discretionary power in its administrationThat in the exercise of this powor it gave the Commissioner the opportunity of displaying an unfailing supply o£ ability m&lwti mi that H brought- to ftwrijf two million*, to the Treasury, is the beet

that can be said for a tax that now finds no defenders. The great merit of the new proposals is that they put the taxation both of land and of incomes on a more scientific footing than they occupied before, with the result that no change in principle will be needed, but only a change in degree when the restoration of peace renders an alleviation of the burden possible. The most serious criticisms of the Budget only went to this question of degree under existing conditions. Why, it was urged; should not the exemption limit of incomes be lowered, at any rate for the unmarried men? Why should not the graduated vote be increased at the other end of the scale, with some qualification in the case of companies? Why has the " bursting-up " policy been lost sight of in framing a progressive land tax which ignores the old distinction between " business premises " and large estates not coming within that definition? If Sir Joseph failed to deal satisfactorily with these and some other questions in his reply, it must be conceded that in the main he was very successful. Tho Budget had indeed received so little damaging criticism that his task was an easy one.