BRITAIN’S BUDGET

Evening Star, Issue 22629, 22 April 1937, Page 11

BRITAIN’S BUDGET

LABOUR AND LIBERAL CRITICISM FAVOURABLE PRESS COMMENT Press Association—By Telegraph—Copyright LONDON, April 20. Mr C. R. Attlee (Lab.) said: “The Budget marks the complete failure of the Government policy. We shall oppose it, because it is an expression of the foreign policy which is helping to ruin the world.” Sir Archibald Sinclair (Lib.) said the Chancellor had explained why Britain was unable to balance the Budget this year, but did not attempt to explain how we would be in a better position five years hence. ‘The Times,’ in an editorial, says: “ Mr Chamberlain avoided all extremes, apportioning the cost between revenue and a loan in the manner least likely to encourage a boom or start a downward movement.”

The * Daily Telegraph ’ says : “ The new tax is an endeavour to take back at least a portion of the extra gains which may arise from increased expenditure on armaments, but it will apply to all forms of increased business profits.” The ‘ Manchester Guardian ’ says: “ Mr Chamberlain deserves high credit for anticipating the public demand for an excess profits duty and allaying possible unrest due to the spectacle of high profits made from the country’s need.” EXCHEQUER RETURNS (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, April 21. The optimistic forecast of the year’s revenue in the Chancellor’s Budget statement is supported by the Exchequer returns, which show that the total ordinary revenue amounts to £37,179,660, compared with £31,145,641 at the corresponding date last year. The revenue from income tax is over £1,000,000 higher at £8,164,000, and the yield of thh Customs has jumped from £8,596,000 last year to £11,123,000. The total ordinary expenditure is £43,175,039, compared with £46,931,196 at the corresponding date in 1936. . STBSK EXCHANGE RECOVERS IRON AND STEEL SHARES DEPRESSED. LONDON, April 21. (Received April 22, at 11 a.m.) The disposition of the market this morning was to take a gloomy view of the Budget. Industrial stocks opened weak. ; Armament and shipping shares were 'especially depressed. The markets took better heart in the afternoon, as it was realised not only that industrials are considerably under the year’s high levels, but that the new tax will leave companies a substantial proportion of the increased profits. Iron and steel shares remain depressed, but shipping shares are slightly better. Rubber shares are stronger.’ . Commodity shares are active and strong. The ‘ Daily Herald,’ ''in a full-page leader on the Budget, praises Mr Chamberlain’s courage, but considers that if he had carried) any of his principles te their logical conclusion he would have prohibited any direct profits from armaments. THE CHANCELLOR’S BROADCAST DEFENCE EXPENDITURE NECESSARY FOR PEACE. (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, April 21. (Received April 22, at noon.) The national defence contribution provided for in the Budget aroused immediate interest in the lobbies in the House of Commons, and all its implications are not yet fully appreciated. Discussing the project in a broadcast talk, the Chancellor said: “It is not that I consider the profits now happily being earned by trade and industry to be excessive. s The depression, while it lasted, was very intense, and not only did shareholders go without dividends, but in many cases they lost a great part of their capital as well. In those circumstances it is all to the good that they’ should have been able to recoup some of their losses and reequip their factories so as to be able to meet competition in export markets, but now that we have to find this ex-' ceptionally large sum for defence in a comparatively short time" I do not think it unreasonable to ask that businesses which are doing so much better should make a special and temporary contribution to the cost of national defence. After #ll, any help which, they may give now will add materially to national security, which is essential to the maintenance of their prosperity.” After declaring that maintenance of peace was worth more than any reduction in taxation and that a strong Britain was the surest guarantee that peace would be preserved, Mr Chamberlain concluded: “ Perhaps some day, when this madness of arming is over, a successor of mine may have the good fortune to be given the opportunity to remit taxation, of which I have been deprived. Let us pray that that day may come soOn.” THE ARMAMENTS RACE PARIS, April 21. (Received April 22, at 10.10 a.m.) Tlie Press considers that Britain will win the armaments race, as she is drawing on her reserves at the moment when Germany has exhausted hers, but Britain, no more than Germany* can live by rearmament, which de--1 stroys instead of creating capital..,

THE NEW TAX VARIOUS OPINIONS. LONDON, April 21. (Received April 22, at 11 a.m.) ! Not only city business men, but a large number of Conservative members in the House of Commons criticise the injustice of the new tax. Fears are expressed that it will retard the establishment of new enterprises in the distressed areas. The ‘ Financial News ’ estimates that the tax will take about 15 per cent, of the increased profits of industry, and adds; “As 25 per cent, already goes in income tax, it is a wonder that people trouble to hold shares at all.” One of the shrewdest of the Labour members told the parliamentary correspondent of ‘ The Times ’ that the tax would not be removed from the Statute Book in his lifetime. DEBATE IN COMMONS PARTY LEADERS EXPRESS OPINIONS. (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, April 21. (Received April 22, at noon.) The House of Commons began consideration of the Budget proposals in earnest to-day. Mr Pethick Lawrence, for the Labour Party, wanted to know how the Chancellor’s plan for national defence contribution would work in a number of ways, and expressed the hope that the Treasury had taken to heart the mistakes learned in connection with war-time excess profits duty. Sir Robert Horne paid a high tribute to the Chancellor’s conduct of the nation’s finances during his long period of office. He had pursued an undeviating course of resolution, and rectitude, with the result that the country was the envy of the world. Sir Robert Horne, however, was critical of the proposed national defence contribution, the scope of which he thought too wide, and which he feared would result in a check on enterprise. He urged that the opportunity, which, he believed offered, should be seized for securing a trade agreement with the United States. Sir Archibald Sinclair attacked what he described as the Chancellor’s protectionist policy, and indicated that the liberals would have preferred strict control of armament prices rather than a scheme of taxation, which made the Government a partner in profiteering.

Sir Alan Anderson thought a measure such as national defence contribution was absolutely necessary when the whole people were being called upon to bear the heavy burden, although he admitted that schemes for taxing excess profits were full of difficulty and danger, and .generally unsatisfactory.