TOPICS OF THE DAY

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 46, 1 September 1928, Page 8

TOPICS OF THE DAY

■ , —«- Labour's contribution to the Industrial Conference debate yesterday introduced no new issues. The discussion generally was' tame and of little value. In this, however, we see no substantial cause for complaint. When the parties most conversant with tho | issues had discussed arbitration in the conference itself, it was not likely that many members of Parliament would be able to add much that was helpful. In the circumstances they showed j good judgment in refraining from any comment which might be provocative. Labour members particularly aro entitled to credit for the restraint exercised. They did not question tho sincerity of tho Government effort to bring about an understanding, and their speeches generally disclosed a willingness to support the Prime Minisfcor iv his attempt to raise this great national problem above tho plane of party strife. * # * Instead of supporting tho present method of company taxation, the refund provisionl quoted by tho Minister of Financo this week shows' the inequity of the system. In reply to Mr. H.-G. E. Mason, the Minister said that a taxpayer with an income of £400 |or under from all sources could obtain a refund of the tax paid by a company on the dividend received by the taxpayer. Quite fairly, however, Mr. Stewart mentioned the proviso: . Relief in such casea is confined to shareholders whose dividends plus j any tax refunded amount to less than C per cent, of their share in tho paid!up capital. The taxpayer .with an income exceeding £400 can obtain no refund, and tho proviso means that ov tho shareholder of smaller means has only a limited rolief. He or "she must invest only in tho enterprises which pay less than C per cent. As this 6 per cent, is calculated on tho paid-up capital, not upon what the shareholder may have paid for the shares, a return of 6 per cent, upon the investment is by no means assured. Indeed, with many of the older companies which have good reserves and whoso shares are at a premium, a refund would bo out of tho question. An attempt might bo 'mado to justify this with the argument that such companies, being in a strong position, can afford to pay handsomely to the exchequer. Robin Hood originated this plea; but it is small consolation to the shareholder who has chosen the safe investment of a stable enterprise. ■ . * ' * * ': ' ' In a reasoned and moderate statement regarding time-payment purchasing, the annual report of the Industries and Commerce Department concludes: — Credit trading is clearly not to bo regarded as unsound or undesirable trading, and, provided that tho buyer is reasonably able to meet his credit obligations, the main factor for consideration is the.naturo of the goods . sold on credit and the use which tho purchaser intends to make of thorn. Obviously the nature of the goods sold is of prime importance. Tho purchase of a house or a farm or provision for old ago (by insnranco) by time-pay-ments promotes thrift and helps to build up tho national capital. But the application of the system to articles which lose thoir value rapidly is uneconomical, especially if the trader is compelled to guard himself against loss

by including a substantial premium in tho price. It is difficult, however, to see how the extension of hire-purchase and timo-paymont methods can bo controlled. Even conservative traders may bo compelled by competition to adopt them. Government intervention would bo cumbersome. Tho most hopeful means of control lie- in the hands of the traders themsolves, acting in conjunction with tho financial institutions upon whom tho maintenance of credit ultimately depends. With such united action it is possible to prevent tho system being carried to tho extreme of selling cash upon a time-payment system. »• * * While we cannot follow Mr. Frasor in all the arguments he advanced in support of his measure for regulating reports of judicial proceedings, we fully sympathise with his aim. "The Post" has at all times sought to guard against the inclusion iv its reports of matter injurious to public morals. In doing so, however, we have been impelled to rocogniso that publicity is a factor in shaping public conduct. Admittedly it does not place morality on a high level to suggest that it is induced, even in part, by fear of exposure. Nevertheless this is a fact, and one which may be of particular importance in divorce. As tho Attorney-General pointed out, it. is doubtful if tho English Act has been sufficiently long in operation to onablo us to express judgment upon it. A claim has been mado that it has resulted in a great increase in divorce. This is denied by the author of the English Act; and statistics up to the present do not carry us far in reaching a conclusion. In the meantime there is authority for the Court to prevent the publication of evidence. The fact that Judges aro reluctant to apply these provisions is not, in our opinion, a reason for making suppression general and mandatory as Mr. Fraser-sug-gested. Rather it suggests the need for caution. Tho Judges aro in a position to weigh the good and ill effects of publication, and when they are doubtful the Legislature also should be careful in arriving at a decision.