THAT “SPORTING RISK.”

Hawera Star, Volume L, 21 August 1930, Page 4

THAT “SPORTING RISK.”

There is another phase of Air Forbes’ administration as Minister of Finance, which can be called into question, and that is his tendency-—indeed, it seems to be a well-defined policy—to truckle to the Labour interests. This is particularly noticeable in regard to his amusement tax proposals. At first.

he was willing to assume that all persons who could afford to spend something on amusement could afford to contribute their mite to the State, and he was prepared to demand a penny from the occupant of the humble shilling seat with the same firmness as he would take sixpence or more from the “plutocrats” in the orchestral stalls. That was a very proper policy, for the labourer who objects to paying his penny can do the same as the merchant prince—and others —who object to contributing sixpence or a shilling—he can proclaim Iris glorious independence and his righteous resentment by staying away from amusements. All went well until Mr Holland made his impassioned appeal on behalf of “the working man, ’ ’ and then Mr Forbes agreed to exempt one shilling seats from the tax. Then Mr Coates —who is equally blameworthy in this respect — discovered there are precious few entertainments that sell shilling seats, the minimum, in many cases, being one shilling and sixpence. The catch-cry on behalf of the “working man” proved irresistible, and the one and sixpenny ticket was duly exempted. Mr Forbes had his doubts, however, and he hinted that he might have to place an additional one per cent, on income tax to make up for revenue thus lost to the State. All parties in the House having thus made their gesture of friendliness towards Labour, the members sat back quite content with work well done. No one, however, appears to have made a serious attempt to draw attention to one very pertinent fact—that is, that while it is always possible for the down-trodden public to ease the burden of amusement tax by refraining from going to entertainments, it is impossible for the harassed income tax payer to off-set additional income tax by earning more money. Happily Mr Forbes has since found—after again consulting the Treasury—that an additional one per cent, on income tax will not be necessary. In his own words, he is “prepared to take a sporting risk. ’ ’ Commercial interests, who believe that lis has already budgetted for a surplus, might well ask —“What risk?' ’