Manawatu Evening Standard. SATURDAY, JULY 4, 1931. UNEMPLOYMENT FINANCE BILL.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LI, Issue 182, 4 July 1931, Page 6

Manawatu Evening Standard. SATURDAY, JULY 4, 1931. UNEMPLOYMENT FINANCE BILL.

Tub Unemployment Amendment Bill made its appearance in the House on Thursday afternoon and though its main provisions did not come as a surprise they have created some consternation and more than passing interest. As expected the proposed new tax in aid of the unemployed is to take the form of a levy on wages. Apart from the assistance it will provide for those in distress resulting from the unemployment, it should have the effect of impressing on all men over 20 years of age—and women who are earning wages or have an income—that each and every one of us has a very definite interest in the good government of the State. It should, also, impress on all classes of people the fact—as nothing else will—that it costs money to provide and maintain State services and amenities, some of which could quite , easily be done without. If the new proposed levy becomes law it may cause the thoughtless and indifferent to reflect. In that event it will have served a very useful purpose. But that is about the most favourable defence that can be advanced in support of the proposals. Everyone recognises the necessity for assisting those in distress ; no one—whatever his political colour may be—would remain inactive and see fellow creatures dying from starvation and want of shelter. Humanitarianism demands that succour shall be forthcoming in cases of distress. There can be be no question about this. But the method of providing the necessary funds through _ State intervention may be questioned—and even resisted by public opinion. The method proposed appears to be unnecessarily cumbersome ; it is certain to be more expensive than need be; it will, also, place obligations on employers and incidentally add to overhead costs. Why women should, alfio, be called upon to pay the wages tax is difficult to understand seeing their unfortunate sisters are not to benefit from the fund. It is proposed to reduce the annual ‘‘flat” levy from 30s a year to 20s a year; bureaucracy objects to abandon the yearly poll tax for the ostensible reason that it ensures continued contact with every male over 20. Why? It is asserted by the Minister of Labour that “without .a levy these people would not have to register.” But why register? The only advantage of this additional registration of males over 20—apart from the collection of a poll tax —is to provide further work for the army of State employees, many of whom would be m more useful work (for themselves and the State) if they were other-

wise employed. It is tlie huge costs of State services and enterprises that are largely responsible for the heavy taxation already being imposed and for the extent of the unemployment. The new tax. (if it is imposed; must tend to maintain the numerical strength of the public service and possibly increase it; in the latter event the difficulties of taxpayers will be increased. The desire to maintain a roll of males over 20 years of age must surely be on a par with Russian communistic ideas and should be approved of by New Zealanders (if any) with similar leanings. The good purpose that is to be served by maintaining this roll (at some cost; may, perhaps, be explained by the officials . concerned in maintaining it. Obnoxious and oppressive as the income tax is, it would be much better for the emergency revenue to be obtained through that means, plus an extra duty on tea and sugar as has been suggested in other directions. These taxes are collected at a ; minimum cost and the additional revenue could be secured without any increased cost and the least possible difficulty; but in order to impress upon a wider section of the people that it costs something to maintain a State, the exemption in the case of income tax should be reduced to £2OO and both men and women with incomes, from whatever source, in excess of that would contribute equally. Members of Parliament would be well advised to closely examine the proposals and insist on the withdrawal of the wages tax in favour of something less objectionable and more equitable. The proposals bristle with difficulties and should not be allowed to pass.