The Cost of Living.

Lake County Press, Issue 2669, 15 February 1917, Page 5

The Cost of Living.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—Vour correspondent" Scrutator ” ie, I presume, a large consumer of beer and tobacco, or lie would not growl about the taxes on these luxuries. I wish those taxes were doubled. It would stop much of the juvenile smoking. There would also bo loss drunkenness, and more and better work done. It surprised me to see it stated in “ Scrutator’s ” letter that there is a tax of 25 per cent, oi 5s in the jG on soap. That is a tax on cleanliness, which is said to he next to godliness. The men who (ut that tax on us cared little for either cleanliness or godliness. The tood taxes should also he wiped out. The cost of living would lie much reduced if people would dispense with luxuries altogether, which would be better for their health. Most of us eat a great deal too much moat, which is now very dear. Thoro is no reason why wo should not have a huge and cheap supply of fjesh and salt water fish. Nor is there any reason why fruit should be so dear. The taxes on imputed fruit should be removed, and destruction of fish and of wholesome fruit (simply because it is specked) should not be tolerated. We have too, many senseless inspectors. Wo would be much better off without any inspectors. What inspecting is necessary might be done by the clerks to the local authorities. “ Scrutator’s” comment on our economic system is astonishing. Perhaps it is true. I leave it to others to discuss —Yours etc , A. R.

TO THU EDITOR. Sir, —In my opinion Government is entirely responsible for the higher cost of living. Knowing that the war would advance prices all round, Government should have abolished the food taxes, fixed prices, fixed rents, and put on fishing boats to increase the fish supply, with a distributing agency at every port. But Government did none of these things. Great are its sins of omission. I agree with your correspondent “ Scrutator ” that our system of raising the national revenue is iniquitous, and is altogether in favour of the rich. But the toilers in shop, field, and factory are to blame for it. The only remedy is to tax out those land values which in our larger cities run up to over £l/XX) per.foot, and sweep away all other taxation. If I were a farmer I would vote for this policy, for I would gain much more than I vvould lose by it. I suggest to the farmers of this district the desirability of immediately forming a Free Trade Party. More than half the voters in the towns would support them. The farmers of the North Island are Free Traders almost to a man. A general election could be won on Free Trade if the farmers of the Dominion would form themselves into a Free Trade Party and appoint a capable leader. They would have the trade unions to fight, but they are easily beaten. An offer of a bounty to those trades that N are worth preserving on condition that the employees received a wage of 12s a day with double pay for overtime would knock the bottom out of trade union opposition. The salvation of New Zealand is in the hands of the farmers. They alone can save the country from anarchy and red ruin, and they can do it with a Free Trade policy. This is now the policy of the farmers of Denmark and of Canada, and a largo body of the Australian farmers have declared for it. Why are the New Zealand farmers lagging behind P—Yours etc., X.