THE H.B. TRIBUNE. MONDAY, APRIL 10, 1911. NEED FOR CAREFUL THINKING.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume I, Issue 100, 10 April 1911, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE. MONDAY, APRIL 10, 1911. NEED FOR CAREFUL THINKING.

There is at present a gentleman visiting the towns of New Zealand. His mission is to stir up class strife. He ; carries with him a carpet bag full ; of fabrications relating to the incidence of taxation. His religion is politics and he stands at street corners crying a jehad against the capitalists and landowners. In addition : to the carpet bag he is equipped ; with a resourceful and fertile brain, ! an eloquent tongue and a weakness for figures. Statistics he glories in. They melt like butter in his mouth. Figures talk when he is on the stump. He recently visited Nelson and forthwith the Labour organisation in Sleepy Hollow awoke from its Catskill-like slumber. Was there not a stranger in the town with a face like a glaring anomaly, telling them that they were being robbed by the wicked Ward administration.

On the figures which flowed from ; the visitors’ mouth like buttermilk ; from the bung hole of a churn, ; they framed a resolution which reads as follows : "That the C'us- : toms tariff, amounting to an in-come-tax of 3/6 in the £1 on the wages of working people, while landowners and capitalists with an income of £lO.OOO pay only Ad in the £l, is an injustice so gross and shameful that the workers should refuse to vote for any Parliamentary candidate who is not prepared to demand its immediate abolition.” On Saturday last, ,mr friend the “Napier Telegraph,” speaking of this same resolution said that, as it stands, it exemplifies the need for careful thinking before generalisations are launched. We felt interest-; ed. We had previously passed the : resolution without comment, know-; ing too well the intelligence of the;' workers in Hawke s Bay to feel it was necessary to criticise for public

enlightenment. We found on reading the article exactly what we expected. The Nelson resolution was an unthinking ineptitude. It was dangerous and would be harmful to the spoliation gospel which is being preached by the “Telegraph.” The thing must be nicely wrapped up by the master hand to hide the baldness of the expropriation crusade. They who have read the article know the endeavour which was made to show 7 what the framers of the resolution meant to say. They who have not read it are the better off for their abstinence. But it is not with the Nelson resolution we wash to deal. It is with the “Telegraph’s” argument that the Customs tariff commands a man earning £l5O to pay 7 £.30 annually towards the country’s revenue. The argument is based on the assumption that the goods on which the

working man spends all his £l5O are 20 per cent, dearer than they would be if the Customs duty did not exist. Let us analyse the grounds for this assumption. For convenience in making the investigation we will ignore all social dis tinctions. Classify all the males over 21 years of age as workers, and assume that the average income of each is £l5O per annum. There are no statistics available to disclose the number of males in the colony over the age stateci, but we know; the estimated population is 1,000,-1 000, and we also know that when: the 1906 census was taken, one-i third of the people in N.Z. w 7 ere; males over 21 years of age. Assuming that the percentage of adult i

males is the same to-day as then, it is safe to estimate that there are now 333,333 men iu the Dominion. We are mindful of the fact that some of these men are not enjoying an income of £l5O per annum, but we are safe in striking the average i in that amount, because the man who receives more than that sum keeps a larger establishment than his poorer brother; also because the earnings of the large number of women and juvenile workers, which we have not taken into account, go not only to support themselves but also assist the families to which they I belong. Anyway the “Telegraph” i cannot dispute om argument because it fixed the earnings and expenditure of the working man at £l5O per annum. But let us proceed. We have shown that a fair : estimate of the number of males | over 21 years of age is 333,333, and ! we have given our reason for class- ' ing them all as receivers of incomes 1 £l5O per annum. The simple process of multiplying 333,333 by 150 gives the total income and expenditure of these receivers and spenders at £49,999,950. Therefore, if the “Telegraph’s” statement, viz., that the workers have to pay to the Customs 3/6 in every pound they spend, is correct, then the revenue from Customs alone last year should have been £8,374,995. A glance at the Year book will show how very wide of the mark—how very extravagant the ‘Telegraph” is in its endeavour to make a good case against capitalists and landowners. What are the facts ? We published them a week ago when refuting statements then made by the “Telegraph.” We repeat them again to-day. The total amount derived from indirect and direct taxation last year was £4,215,858. This was made up as follows : Land tax £t)42,270; income tax, £316,835 ; death duties, £192,014; other direct taxes, £308,249, and the balance £2,786,490, Customs and excise duties. These figures completely burst up the 3/6 in the £1 bubble winch w r as blow r n by the “Telegraph.” As a matter of truth the levy is nearer 7d than 3/6 in the £l. Any way the levy on necessaries is very small indeed, for when the revenue derived from duties on alcoholic drinks and tobacco (£1,321,060) is deducted from the £2,786,490 shown under the heading “Customs and Excise Duties,” there only remains £1,465,430, derived from duties on food and clothing. The facts which we have stated should convince the “Telegraph” of the one truth in its article, that “there is need for careful thinking before generalisations are launched.” To-morrow we will explain the meaning of the Single Tax system advocated by our evening contemporary.