INDISCRIMINATE BONUS

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 30, 6 February 1933, Page 6

INDISCRIMINATE BONUS

(To the Editor.) v%'—A-Wiafor the farmers and a set■ThS W* rem? in(ier 5* the body politic. -That is how exchange increased to 25 per fh?w -° buJt the dairy factory in m»aJ>t lraf ai1? a' -Wlth Mtwfactory. results, made, the following,remark in the course of conversation with the writer, some years ago, it is true.' 'If we could depend on getting; tenpence a pound for our butter we would be,in clover." Farmers, gen* raUy, then making butter in excess of Jiome consumption requirements, were being credited with sixpence a 1 pound for It _by Jocal storekeepers. The' gentleman referred to was not, of course, farming land of inflated value, and practically all otner tanners were then similarly situated m that respect. If any farmers of lands of non-inflated values are now in need of assistance, the number is, probably, inconsiderable. Like the dairy farmer above referred to, the wealthy pastoralist cannot be in need of help. Obviously, in the interests of the people _as a whole, something better than indiscriminate bonus scattering should be adopted, whereby the industrious and hardly pressed farmers, notably those on land of inflated values, Tvho are not going .to escape extinction, per medium of the

higher exchange alone, should get all of that which under existing conditions is being pocketed by those not in need of it. Recognising then that help must be given, it is suggested that applicants for assistance Ehould be asked to fully define the circumstances necessitating their applications; that is, to give area1 held, tenure; if leasehold state rent; method of farming; produce obtained; if married number of members of families; amounts of mortgages and interest paid; also other liabilities. Provision on1 ■ lines suggested would surely be better than distribution without any discrimination whatever as conferred by the 25 per cent, exchange.—l am, etc., INTEEESTED.