THE CUT AND INCOME

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 67, 20 March 1931, Page 6

THE CUT AND INCOME

(To the Editor.) Sir,—Your correspondent "Taxpayer" in Wednesday's "Evening Post" is both accurate and" amusing. But the wage-earner who is not a "direct" taxpayer looks at it from another angle which is equally accurate, if not so amusing. The £100 a yeav man, less 10 per cent., will have £90 left, but the £3000 a year man less 10 pei-cent., will have £2353 10s left—l am' efCl J. MILLER. (To the Editor.) Sir-I ask for just a little of your space to comment upon a letter of "Taxpayer regarding graduation of tax. His statement certainly shows a "money'graduation, but unless I am mistaken the Labour Party advocates an "effect" equality —quite a different thing. The following is commended for his consideration:—Assuming that £3000 per annum is necessary to live comfortably, and that a tax of £600 is a hardship—l leave it to "Taxpayer to define a £30 cut on £300. If on the other hand, £300 is sufficient to live on comfortably, the man drawing £3000 has £2700 in excess of his requirements, burelv £600 is not out of the way to help tiis country out of a hole, especially, when he is forfeiting only a portion of his luxury, which is far in excess o£ the average man's living. » On reading his letter again, Mr. Jiditor, one is forced to the conclusion that it is the usual selfish view -of theimoney man. 41 ter all, in prosperous times .he rakes m the profits—the £200 and £300 man does not, and never will. In conclusion, "laxpayer's" opinion of taking £8 from_ a boy drawing £80 per annum and living away from home woiild no doubt be entertaining to many besides

ONE OF 'EM ON £200. (To the Editor.) Sir,—Tlie Public Service Associations are beating the air in their opposition to the cut. It may be true that Civil Service salaries have never caught up with the increased cost of living; that the 1022 cut lias never been restored, whatever arguments as to increases in salary may be adduced to the contrary; that the farmers who are now crying out for reductions in salaries did not advocate increases when their own profits were soaring; but be these things as they may, there is no getting away from the cold fact that when the Government has not the money to pay salaries at the old rate, either the number of Civil servants or the salaries they receive must be reduced, and of the two. evils the cut is the lesser. The, Civil Service organisations and the Labour Party, too, would, however, be on much sounder grounds if they devoted some attention to another matter which so far has not received the notice it deserves, and that is the proposal to retire all Civil servants on completion of 35 years' service. Surely this is a most uneconomic suggestion. These are men under 55 years of age, in the prime of life, and as useful to their Departments as the younger officers who will succeed them. These successors will receive corresponding increases in salary, and with the retired officers thrown on to the superannuation fund, and remaining a charge on it for five years longer than they would if they went on to the normal 40 years' service, where is the saving? Again, men in the prime of life cannot be expected to remain idle. Partly to keep themselves occupied, partly to supplement thei rpension reduced from 40-00 to 35-00 of their salary and probably further if they are "loaded" with the five years by which their contributions are reduced, they will be forced to seek other employment and will be competing in the labour market to the detriment of others looking for work. There is another point mentioned by Mr C. H 'Chapman, which will have to bo carefully watched, and that is' increases in thfi salaries particularly of lli<\ lughorpaid ollicors, to ofl'sct (ho cuts. J l.'tvo_ tlic Government taken scale increases into consideration in arriving at the savings they hope to effect? Wo have imt, heard anything of their policy in this direction. —I am, cl-c, A. G. JOHNSON. 18th March.