THE STATE'S SHARE

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 8, 9 July 1935, Page 8

THE STATE'S SHARE

Statistical comparisons of taxation may be deceptive unless they are stated with explanations. One explanation given with the figures. published in our news columns yesterday' may appear paradoxical: that though the taxation per head of the population was £15 18s 7d last year, compared with £13 18s 7d for 1934, there has been no important increase in the rates. Actually there were reductions in the unemployment emergency charge ; and in Customs duties. ■ The explanation of this seeming discrepancy is that, though the taxes are shown in totals1 per head, no part of, the taxation is a head or poll tax. The total varies according to the operation of two factors—tax rates and total income and expenditure. The greater part of the increase since 1934 is accounted for by greater expenditure, but the difference between 1933 and 1934 is due in part to increases in Customs duties and - sales tax, which were collected for only part of the 1932-33 financial year. . The important fact to note', however, is that the State collects for its various purposes £15 18s 7d per head. This is mot per head of the adult working population, but actually per head of total population. . In other, words, an average family of four persons contributes over £63 a year. Of course this does not mean that every family contri-. butes this sum; some pay much more, some much less. Nor is it all paid directly. The greater part of Customs and sales tax and that part of the income tax which is paid by companies are indirect taxation. But jhey come from the private individual ultimately, often much swollen by trading additions. Nor is this the whole burden resting on, the householder. He pays local taxation also. It may be submitted that a considerable share of the State revenue thus accumulated, is returned to the community in payments to public servants, pensions, interest on domestic loans, and unemployment pay. It is therefore a redistribution of income. But, allowing for this, the conclusion is irresistible that when one working adult of average means is called upon to pay over £63 and the working adult with an income over the average pays proportionately more the redistribution of income is rapidly approaching its economic limit. Certainly there is not the margin for grandiose schemes involving much heavier exactions.