"A HUNGRY SLEEPING PARTNER"

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 125, 30 May 1938, Page 8

"A HUNGRY SLEEPING PARTNER"

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —Your sub-editorial under the above heading makes one cry with sympathy for the unfortunate company and shareholders of "modest means," who, in the production of this year's profit, have had to set aside £42,613 as their contribution to the State in taxes. An even greater lachrymal condition could have been produced in your readers if you had also stressed the fact that the company in question had only been able to pay an 18 per cent, dividend this year, and a similar paltry one of 174 per cent, last year. But for this iniquitous tax assessment, they might have cleared 50 per cent., and so managed to keep .the wolf from the door.

I have no personal feeling against the company, unless it be of envy that I am unable to invest with it, the shares naturally being at a high premiums The company is satisfying a public want, and, like concerns of a similar nature, has brought down prices considerably during the last few years. The only criticism I will make in that direction is to decry the chairman's whine regarding taxation and "The Post's" upholding of that whine.—X am, etc.,

EARNED INCOME,

(1o the Editor.) Sir,—On reading the" report in last, night's "Post" I was surprised to see' Sir Charles Statham, chairman 'of directors of McKenzie's Stores, making a statement about our hungry sleeping partner, namely,' the State in taxation. Well, I don't know how much money these poor people want for distribution. After all, the money that passes in these stores is Supplied by the working masses generally, and nobody else. So why should not some of this money come back to the public via the income tax?—l am, etc.,

WATCHFOL.

May 27. ["The Post's" comment on the figures was wholly concerned with the inequity of the- existing system of company taxation and its effect'upon trade and industry. The inequity lies in the fact that the small investor pays at the same rate as if he were at the top of the taxation scale. The effect is that a taxed company must earn a pound profit before it can pay a little more than 10s to shareholders. It must, therefore, either charge more for its product or services (for which the public pay) or .be unable to expand its business. The fact that particular companies can contend with these handicaps successfully does not alter the fact that they are a drag upon the expansion of industry.—Ed.]