EXCHANGE SUBSIDY

Evening Post, Issue 66, 15 September 1936, Page 8

EXCHANGE SUBSIDY

(To the Editor.) Sir,—You are to be congratulated for reminding the Government of its failure to deal with the exchange problem. The criticism (justified) of the previous Government and the election promise of .the Labour Party are hardly in keeping with the procrastination in regard to a subject that is "proving a costly waste in the matter of overseas debt payments, an unnecessary burden on the unfortunate taxpayer, and a somewhat illusory blessing to those whom it is supposed to benefit. When a Government revolts against the fundamental laws of sound | trading retribution will inevitably follow and I venture to say that when the taxpayer of this country awakens to the fact that he is contributing millions annually to subsidise the incomes of the wealthy farmers there will be a reaction. There may have been a necessity to help the indigent farmer, but I will defy any economist to show why men with unencumbered properties and incomes over £2000 a year should be a burden on the taxpayer. A farmer who lost his property before the protective laws came into operation, if he went on relief work, was subjected to a "means test." Why wasn't the farmer put to his "means test"? Surely a man with £100 in Jthe bank was more entitled to asisstance than a farmer with £10,000 a year. I would be glad if this Government or any other Government would explain to me why the farmer was entitled to assistance any more than any other branch of industry that was in the same plight through exactly the same cause. Eighty per cent, of farmers could have managed without assistance and still be in a more enviable position than the man in the city who was forced to dissipate his savings before being entitled to relief. The Chamber of Commerce should indicate what reduction the business community favours, as the saving in overseas debt payments alone would serve to assist the indigent farmer. Farmers who cannot carry on after the recent flood of protective legislation should retire. It would be just as well to mention in conclusion that farmers received from 22s to>27s 6d for lambs last year; on plenty of farms a return of 30s a ewe was common. When one considers that the prosperity of this country was founded on a return of less than £1 per ewe, it is hard to understand the statement that the farmer's books will not balance favourably.— lam' CtC" MEANS TEST.