WAR PROFITS.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17098, 22 February 1916, Page 6

WAR PROFITS.

A coßßxspoxnENT whose letter we print this morning quite misses the pointwhen he urges that to get at war profits " everyone " should have his income taxed, on a graduated scale. The point is that everyone docs not receive war profits and a universal scheme of taxation cannot touch the fringe of the question. What is needed is something on the lines of the policy in force in Britain, where 50 per cent, of "excess profits," of incomes that show an abnormal increase since the war began, is taken by the State as a tax on war profits. Wo have said before, and say again, that nothing could be fairer unless it were the commandeering by the Government of all the war profits. Surelv the first legitimate use for money made out of the Empire's difficulties is that it should be expended in the prosecution of the war, and it is difficult to conceive how any fair-minded, patriotic citizen can wish to prosper out of the, agonies of his country. In New Zealand some forty thousand to fifty thousand of the men, the best and bravest of the community, have volunteered to fight and are receiving a monetary reward that the most reckless person would not dare to suggest is excessive. Those meii are rendering service which cannot, ho assessed in pounds, shillings and pence and cannot be adequately paid for in cash, but the least that those who stay at home can do is to appreciate the sacrifices made by the soldiers. The most practical way iii which the non-combatants can prove their.bona fides is to pay. A sheepfarmer in 'the North Island whose contributions to war funds run into five •figures has said that every man can do , something for his country—he can, ''fight, work or pay "—and we maintain that the. paying should bo enforced by the Government. It ought not to be necessary to argue that those whose incomes are increased by the war should be the-first called upon to contribute. Where war'profits are conspicuously large, as in New Zealand, their nontaxation is a scandal, an injustice to the community as a whole and particularly to the men who are fighting in its defence for a few shillings a day. Our correspondent is indignant about a statement estimating war profits in New Zealand at £IS,OGO,OCO per annum. Well, the figures are not ours and we are not responsible, but we should find it easier to support, that estimate than to prove it erroneous. We know that last year the value of agricultural and pastoral produce exported was over £9,000,000 greater than in 1013. and wo know that most of the increase was due to the war. According to official records for 1010-11, the latest year concerning which an estimate is available, the localconsumption of agricultural and pastoral produce was not far short of the surplus exported, so that millions of pounds must havQ been made last year out of war prices charged to New Zealand consumers. Moreover, it is not on agricultural and pastoral produce alone that war profits are made. Shippers, merchants, traders, manufacturers are in many instances enjoying- a measure of prosperity that could never have come to them but for the disastrous upheaval. It is common talk that a certain manufacturer in Wellington has made several thousands of pounds out of the State in a faw months, and many

traders in the capital city particularly must be enjoying abnormal profits. If 50 per cent of war profits in New Zealand vero taken through taxation, on the British plan, which errs, if at all, on the side of moderation, there would be an addition to the. Tevenue that would astonish a. good many people by its bulk. Incidentally it might put out of court, if not to shamo, some who are persistently urging the taxation of wage? and the necessaries of life.