ECONOMY MEASURES

Evening Post, Volume CXIII, Issue 103, 3 May 1932, Page 6

ECONOMY MEASURES

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—The recent statement by the Minis-' ter of Finance that he could hot see a way of introducing a hardship clause in the Act, is a serious blow to that body amongst us, and mostly past middle-age, who are dependent on income from'inter-* est on Government and municipal loans that were purchased at a time when they offered smaller returns than other investments, chiefly because it was thought that the Government would stand to the contract. . .

, The 10 per cent, tax, irrespective of total income, is, in fact, an income 'tax of 2s in the £ion incomes below.the taxable amount on incomes from salaries. Surely !t js j only fair that a hardship clause be1 added exempting incomes to the same extent as_ in. the Income Tax Act, or to allow of a claim being made if the total income doefe not exceed £200 per annum. ..It may also be stated that by reason of the _ collection of .. income tax from companies the small, investor has to pay the maximum rate even if his total income is below the minimum for the collection of income tax. This, like the 2s in the £ tax above mentioned, is iniquitous. The small man or woman should, as I believe is the case in England, be allowed a retuna of payments made through companies in excess of the rate payable on his individual income.—l am, etc

T.MATHEWS.