UNEMPLOYMENT TAX

Hawera Star, Volume LIV, 25 October 1934, Page 7

UNEMPLOYMENT TAX

DEBATE IN THE HOUSE quest: :on of exemptions RATES 3 OF SUSTENANCE. (By Telegraph- —Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Oct. 24. The- Hon. J. A. Young, aeting-Min-jster of Employment, moved: the second reading of the Unemployment Amendment (No. 2) Bill in the House of Representatives . to-day. Mr M. J- Savage, Leader of the Opposition, thought that instead of trying, to make the Bill fit the existing conditions the Minister should get rid of all relief work. There was still a number of gaps, he added. There ( might be a number of young girls | who had a substantial income but who were exempt from payment of the tax under the Bill. He considered the Minister would have to go farther than removing the restriction on the time limit of the payment of sustenance. He said the rate of sustenance would have to be increased and the amount provided in the original Act should be paid. Generally' speaking, some improvements were made and persons who should never have been affected were given relief. Mr R. McKeen (Labqur, ’Wellington South) suggested that when a relief worker was injured he should continue to receive the same payment as compensation as if lie were working. Mr A. J. Stall worthy (Ind. Eden) asked the Minister to increase the exemption to women still further to £IOO a year. He hoped the day would not he long before the whole system was superseded by something more satisfactory. Mr F. Jones (Labour, Dunedin South) asked what the Government estimated it would lose by the concessions given. He said he thought the tax should lye graduated and lie urged that greater provision should he made for unemployed boys and greater assistance given the relief worker who had unemployed children. He asked if the limit of the exemption of oldage pensioners was £lO4 for husband and wife, or jointly. Mr Young intimated that lie understood. the exemption applied to £lO4 l for each.

A “VICIOUS” TAX. Mr F. Langstone (Labour, Waiinarino) said the tax imposed on relief workers was vicious. He claimed that relief workers were intended to he beneficiaries of the unemployment tax, not taxpayers, and that the taxing of relief workers was taxing money twice. He was satisfied, he said, that the Unemployment Board could pay a greater rate o-f sustenance. Mrs E. R. McCoombs (Labour, Lyttelton) said if the Government felt the same concern for the unemployed as it did for the dairy industry the unemployed would not bo in the position they were in to-day. She criticised the Government for the way' it treated unemployed women. Many women and girls, she said, had refused to register because of the indignities to which they were subjected. Mr R. A. Wright (Independent, Wellington Suburbs) urged the abolition of the lew as it affected relief workers. He said it would cost about £IO,OOO, but the fund could stand it. Mr W. E. Parry (Labour, Auckland Central) believed that if the lnemplovment Board carried on vigorous housing policies the number of unemployed would be greatly reduced, necessary work would be put in hand, and many other workers would be benefited. The Hon. A. D. McLeod (Coalition. Wairarapa) said country member’s wore just as concerned about unemployed as city members. To give country relief workers the same as city i workers would cost- £2,000,000.

ON SALARY BASIS

Mr H. T. Armstrong (Labour, Christchurch East) contended that the exemption of persons from the unemployment tax should not be age. but the salary received. He said some "iris aged 18 and 19 years were receiving double that of girls aged 21 and 22” years, but they would be exempt from the payment of the tax. He thought a part of everyone s income should be exempt from taxation. Mr A. M. Samuel (Coalition, Thames) referred to the differentiation in payments to the country and the city relief worker and urged the Government to remedy the position. Mr AY. J. Jordan (Labour, Alanukau) considered all pensioners should be exempt from the payment of unemployment tax. The amount pensioners received v - as too small for them to live upon. It was unsatisfactory to find the unemployment fund mounting up, as there was no reason why the fund should he much ahead of income. Mr W. A. Veitcli (Co., Wanganui) contended that much of the Dominion’s trouble was dne to internal causes and could be remedied. Much legislation in'recent years had retarded the trade of the country, he said. The outlook of the Government had been that of a farmer and the country had not received half value foi> the money expended on unemployment. Twelve million pounds had been spent in assisting unemployed, but there was nothing to show for itThe debate was adjourned.