BUDGET DEBATE

Evening Star, Issue 18254, 19 April 1923, Page 6

BUDGET DEBATE

EXPERT LIBERAL VIEWS IS DEBT REDUCTION OVERDONE? ATTACK ON THEATRE PROFITEER. Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright. LONDON, April 17. Mr Asquith, (who was Chancellor- of the Exchequer m 1905-8), resuming the debate on the Budget, congratulated Mr Stanley Baldwin on the form and substance of tho Budget. Ho pointed out that the income tax for tho past year yielded £60,000,000 over expectations, Last year ho complained that Sir Robert Homo’s Budget was a gamble, but fortunately it was a gamble which came off. Ho welcomed Mr Baldwin’s debt reduction proposal as sound. A sinking fund of 1 per cent, on the total dead-weight debt would absorb £80,000,000 per year. He did not suggest that it was possible this year, but we ought to work up to it. He viewed the income tax as a modified but vicious form of capital levy, which not merely curtailed tho middle classes’ enjoyments and comforts, but actually dried up tho stream which fertilised the whole field of employment and industry. In view of the future prospects in regard to liabilities bo doubted whether he would have remitted any taxation. Ho did not intend to oppose tho income tax reduction, but ho thought if a reduction of indirect taxation were possible from the points of view of trade and social domestic life, sugar should bo preferred to beer. The Liberals would propose tho reconsideration of this decision.

Sir Robert Horne (ox-Chanccllor of the Exchequer) said that the late Government Lad reduced the fighting services £28,000,000 below tho Estimates, and £14.000,000 below the amount suggested by tho Geddes Committee. It should now bo acknowledged that the late Government had not only made a great effort for economy but had achieved great results. He agreed that we should pay off all tho debt wo could, but it would bo unwise to fix a rigid amount to be paid each year without regard to the stato of trade and the country’s oapactiy to bear taxation. They could not extract golden eggs and pato do foie gras from the same goose, evon if tho same goose were the taxpayer. Tho Chancellor’s remissions this year should have gone further, and ho thought that the Chancellor was making too great provision for debt reduction. Commander E. Hilton Young (Nat. Lib.) said that in the present transitional stage in working back to prosperity tho Chancellor ought to have reduced taxation to tho utmost limit and postponed debt reduction.

Sir L. Worthington Evans (C.) thought that a portion of last year’s heavy surplus ought to have been used for national works, including housing. Mr E. G. Hemmerde, K.C. (Lab.), in a vigorous attack on the entertainment tax, said that no atempt was made to intercept the profits on subletting theatres. One man bad cornered theatres to such an extent that ho made a rental profit of £1.250 a week on a group of London theatres which lost £12,000 m 1922, but which yet handed oyer £197,000 in entertainment tax.

The debate was adjourned.—'-A. and N.Z. Cable.