POLITICAL COWARDICE?

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 10, 12 July 1922, Page 9

POLITICAL COWARDICE?

LESS EXPENDITURE AND MORE TAXATION The Welfare League writes: '"The discussions taking- place in our Parliament exhibit a good deal of the ostrich habit on the part of most members. | They are trying to get away from the hard facts of the Dominion's financial ! trouble by the wealc expedient of ignoring the large deficit in national income the country has to carry on with. This policy of attempting to shuffle past unpleasant circumstances smacks somewhat of political cowardice. Members are told by the Minister of Finajice that there is a shortage of £6,600,000 which has to bo met. No one has questioned the correctness of the statement, but members go on talking as if th© matter were a mere point in debate, and not the serious concern of anybody except the Finance Minister. Yet the stern fact has to be faced by the people of the Dominion if not by their present representatives. Tho question of salaries and wages in the Public Service is being discussed on the basis of statistical calculations, and what the Government should give. At the same time the important question of how much the Government has to pay with is being paid little. attention to. A review of th© ordinary expenditure on Government Departments since 19U- shows rapid and continuous increase all tho tinie. The situation cannot be dealt with on a basis of sound finance by merely considering what -everybody should get from the Government. The fact should be faced that if the money is not there to give, it cannot be given. If a private business firm were faced with a situation such as the Government has now to deal with, it would ask these questions :— "(1) Is the service being given of full economic value for what is expended on it? "(2) Is the staff greater than' what is required ? "(3) Are the salaries such as the firm can afford to pay? "(4) Are there any fresh avenues of business from which the revenue can be increased? "The business and common-sense principle behind theae questions, whether applied to a private or public concern, is simply that to meet loss there are' only the two methods, either reduce expenditure or increase the revenue. It would best serve New Zealand, at this time if our M.P.'s would concentrate their whole attention on the definite question: Shall there be decreased public expediture or increased taxation? The Holland Party answers lightly—put more taxation on wealth. It seems to visualise 'wealth' as a Fortuna bag from which the Government can draw interminably. This is sheer nonsense. More taxation on wealth means in practice withdrawal of income which would otherwise bo used as capital for the expansion of industry. It means in degree breaking the machinery of trade and industry by which tho. Government derives its present revenue. These people fail to realise that we have reached the stage where higher taxation of wealth spells less wealth to tax and a lessened revenue, not a greater. "In our opinion this country is overburdened in the way of State expenditure. Reduction of publio expenditure must come if the Dominion's finances are to bo put on a sound footing. If the whole field of expenditure were reviewed it would, we believe; be practicable to avoid inequitable burdens being cast on any one class, and yet enable us to adjust finances on a sound working basis." j