CORRESPONDENCE.

Evening Star, Issue 12307, 23 September 1904, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE COST OP LIVING. TO THE. EDITOR. - Sir, —New Zealand taxes food, hence (he cost of living is raised. If ‘'L.A.C.” could only induce Mr Seddon to abandon the ■wheat tax. bread would he cheaper. The tax is 3s 8d a quarter on all wheat imported, consequently (he price to the consumer is raised by this amount. the difference between an open market and a protective one is the price at the former phis the protective duty at the latter. Wheat in France is always 12a a quarter more than in England, hi cause 12» is the import duty. Notwithstanding our import tax, in 1905 we imI'orted to the va'uo of G16.704, the duty on which was £1,634 2s 4d. In addition to the consumer paying thk ho also paid the distributor—the syndicate—their profits" What these wt-ro is, of course, known only to themselves. Mr Seddon's excuse, for continuing the tax is that it benefits the. farmer. It does nothing of the kind; it benefits the distributor only, as the current market price indicates. Workers willingly (sic) pay tho tax, consequently the higher price for bread, because the Arbitration Court gives them an increase of wages, and it is only fair that tho distributor and manufacturer should have a larger margin of profit. Of course the argument (their own) is a rid’culons one, because all protective tariffs only increase the margin of profit to the manufacturer and distributor. Whether tho workers will ever grasp the fact that capitalistic competition is their best friend is very doubtful. There is no capitalistic competition allowed to interfere with tho American millionaire—that is, Outside America; hence hia ever-increasing wealth at the expense of the workers. Under Customs taxation—Protection—the working man has as large a, burden as the wealthy man, if not a larger, and he has to pay these taxes whether working or idie; because they are the actual necessaries of life to sustain the wife and bairns. The folly of protective Customs taxation always reminds one of the old paradox: “ Straight down the crooked lane and all round the square." Broadly speaking, ’‘rent” has nothing to do with the cost of production «n young countries particularly, yet it increases the, purchasing power of the consumer. The wages of labor and profits of capital are the first charges on the,products of the soil, nevertheless there must remain in some cases an excess of protit of one estate over another, and rent arises. Rent, in fact, is, or arises from, a certain profit on a certain expenditure, of a certain amount of capital and labor on certain and various natural agencies. May ono present this postulation to Secretary. Tregear.—l am, etc., F.M. September 22.