The Grey River Argus TUESDAY, Aug. 27, 1946. THE OBLIGATION OF THE STATE

Grey River Argus, 27 August 1946, Page 4

The Grey River Argus TUESDAY, Aug. 27, 1946. THE OBLIGATION OF THE STATE

Humbug is a large ingredient in the Nationalist Party criticism of the budget, especially of the increase in departmental estimates. When a Labour Member pointed out how many millions in expenses could be cut by recalling the J. Force, the Opposition (w'ho in war-time were all for recalling men) replied that Britain had to be considered. A deal of new expenditure is due to family allowances and other new and improved benefits, which the Opposition claim unanimously to support. Yet they assert in effect that those benefits are consistent with greater immediate tax reduction, and also with a cut in departmental expenditure. The comparing of pre-war and postwar expenditure and taxation is calculated to blind the public to many unavoidable obligations which the State has had to undertake in the meantime. Social security is a great national advantage, but one whic’h the Opposition utterly discounts when reckoning- up expenditure. If the people swallowed t'he story that security is obtainable for nothing, they could expect security to dwindle to nothing. What the masses must not forget is the ultimate object of the National Party in bemoaning t’hat the cuts in taxation have not been greater. That object obviously is to discredit social security, and to pave the way for its radical reduction. Until this budget came down, the Opposition used to lament the subsidising of producers and vendors of certain essential commodities. Now, however, thev complain that w’hile sales taxes on certain commodities have been reduced substantially, the Government has at the same time withdrawn the subsidies for those commodities. and that consequently the vendors will not lower t’he prices in proportion to the lowering of the sales taxes. Surely, if a reduction in these, prices is now sought, it must be admitted that the Government was justified in keeping them from hitherto rising by means of subsidy? It is quite easy to tell taxpayers they should pay less, but, when it comes down to actual cases, those who say this are unable to suggest hoAV a substitute for any particular tax is to be found. The only conclusion left to be drawn is that they wish the State gradually to slide out of the important obligations which it has assumed during the past decade. This Government has never funked any issue, either in peace or war, and if it is now said to have reduced taxes too little,'the reason is that posterity is not being left the financial burdens which are the just obligation. of this generation.

A further allegation is that departmental development may mean competition by t'he State against the private employer for labour. This cry is not new. It was even raised during the war as a ground for limiting the forces being sent by the Dominion to the front. Among those forces were very large numbers of State employees, but the Government’s critics even objected to the consequent limitation of railway, educational and other public services. If t'he expenditure of the State has now reached one hundred millions yearly, the reason is simply that essential undertakings have become, more than ever a public obligation. Those politicians who pretend that, if such services were left to private enterprise, they would be cheaper than under public enterprise, are not candid. Every country finds it imperative to rely now upon Governmental initiative for the restoration of things from a war to a peace basis. Capitalists themselves are everywhere looking to the State for support. The great majority of the community do not own productive property. The minority who do largely regard those who don’t as means to the end of making money. Hence the complaint of expansion in State enterprise reducing the supply of labour ■ for other enterprises. Nor are employers any longer the main taxpayers. The workers in actual fact have in t'he past generation shown the capacity and readiness to bear a greater relative, if not also a greater

absolute, increase in their taxation than the employers. What the National Party to-day use as the basis of their appeal is the assertion t’hat the enterprise of the State is only a matter of taxation, whereas the truth is that the State sees to the security and welfare of everybody insofar as it is really necessary.