Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. SATURDAY; JULY 9th., 1932. WAGE-TAX BURDEN.

Greymouth Evening Star, 9 July 1932, Page 6

Greymouth Evening Star. AND BRUNNERTON ADVOCATE. SATURDAY; JULY 9th., 1932. WAGE-TAX BURDEN.

Ministers differ who shall decide ? In discussing the unemployment relief taxation, <Mr. Coates, just before his “desertion,” heroically declared that if increase in the special tax were necessary, he would not hesitate to propose it. Mr. Forbes, early this week, said: “As has been indicated already in the press, it may be necessary to strengthen the Unemployment Fund, but the manner in which this will be done will be considered when Parliament assembles.” On Thursday, Mr. Hamilton, Acting Minister of Employment, told the Farmers’ Conference that in his opinion, New Zealand with a population of one million and a-half people had reached the limit of taxation, in finding three and a-half million pounds a year for the relief of unemployment.

It is pleasing to note this recognition in high places that special taxation demands can go too far. It would approach injustice

to increase the unemployment re- [ lief tax, especially where the smaller wage-earners, and those dependent on small incomes are concerned. There is no lessening in the general desire to help the distressed unemployed, but there is an increasing reluctance to be passive whilst orgies of expenditure are being contrived. Unemployment relief schemes lend themselves to criticism, and blunders were not avoidable, but the public had the right to expect better results than have been secured hitherto. What are really camouflaged closer settlement schemes should not be financed from, unemployment relief revenue, except to very small degree. Nor can the tax-payers be expected to be thrilled by Mr. Hamilton’s claim that “the country would have at least £2,000,000 to show in improvements after the expenditure of £3,500,000.” A million and a-half pounds spent in a year or so, with nothing to show for it, suggests disastrous finance, and the disclosure will certainly not popularise any proposals to in, crease the unemployment relief taxation.

Complaints are made by Labour Press and leaders that some sections of the community have made a good thing out of the “unemployment” facilities. This allegation is undeniable. It must be remembered, however, that at the beginning of the slump, New Zealand was practically Unanimous against the introduction of the dole for the unemployed, insisting that work should be done for the money granted. That has proved a wise decision, but such system makes it unavoidable that some of the “labour” was little more than nominal, and that some employers obtained workers on abnormally favourable conditions.. There is no cause for great indignation about such development. What public opinion has to do to-day, is to discourage Ministers from thinking they have but to suggest an increase in the ‘special wage—or income—tax, to have the nation again cheerfully volunteering. “The limit has been reached,” said Mr. Hamilton, and in this instance, the voice of the Minister is the voice of the nation, or at least., the great bulk-of it. Happily, signs of improvement are already in evidence, and perhaps the question of unemployment relief taxation will shortly take the form Qf how much can be taken off. '