Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

SALES TAX PROTEST.

FEILDING CHAMBER DECLINES

SUPPORT

After receiving support at the hands of the Feilding Borough Council, a motion moved on behalf of Mr E. Fair (who brought the matter forward at the borough council meeting), that the Feilding Chamber of Commerce protest against tho imposition by the Government of a sales tax, was unanimously rejected.

Mr G. Fitzpatrick put the motion forward with an explanation that as Mr Fair was absent he was doing it on his behalf. Mr J. S. Tingey seconded the motion, but in tho ensuing discussion it was amply demonstrated that the wish of tho chamber was not so much against the imposition of the tax as not to place any hindering restrictions on the Government’s endeavours to rehabilitate the finances of- the country.

The discussion opened with a protest from Mr J. E. Barltrop about interfering with tho Government’s work, the president, Mr A. J. Kellow, endorsing the previous speaker’s remarks, and adding that he was sorry to see that the Feilding Borough Council had taken the matter up. The Government had been put into power with about the biggest job any Government in New Zealand had ever had—it was searching for revenue in every direction, and yet everything which was brought forward was objected to. The Government had been put in with a free hand and tho public had to take what was given it, but if they did not as a nation put their energies into the difficulties before the country how was it going to get out of them? Mr Kellow thought it much bettor to leave the matter alone and the chamber put forward a motion expressing its sympathy with the Government in the task before it. Such an act, Mr Kellow thought, would be more graceful than criticising them all the time.

Mr C. A. Hausmann said he had made careful investigations into the proposed, sales tax and he could assure members of the chamber that there ■were to bo a number of exemptions in the Act. Mr Hausmann understood that all primary products were exempt in the Bill and that there was really nothing in it that would burden the breakfast table of the worker. Mr Hausmann agreed with the other speakers that nothing should be done to embarrass the Government. If the sales tax did not go through it would mean that about £1,000,000 would have to be found from some other source and therefore it would be better to let the matter drop. Mr Fitzpatrick at this stage explained his position in the matter. He had felt sure that Mr Fair would have brought the question up if he had been present and it was for this reason the speaker had done it on his behalf. Personally, Mr Fitzpatrick was quite prepared'to take no further action in regard to the tax and to join in offering his sympathies to the Government in the task it had before it. Mr C. E. Taylor (Mayor) said he was sorry the resolution had gono through the Borough Council. At the time the speaker had requested time to consider the matter and also to refer it to the chamber. Mr Taylor confessed ho was quite ignorant of the measure and ho would have liked Mr Fair to have been present to handle the motion and explain matters as he was a gentleman who usually gave great thought to anything before he acted. Mr J. S. Tingey said he had seconded tho matter out of respect to MiFair just as Mr Fitzpatrick had moved it. The speaker referred to tho many recommendations of the National Economy Commission which effected Education Boards, but the boards, although they were vitally affected, were not protesting against all tho recommendations. _ . , Mr Tingey agreed with Mr Fairs statements, made at the Borough Council meeting, that tho sales tax would increase the cost of living. At the same time, however, it was no nse criticising the Government in oilier than a constructive manner. Members could rest assured that the sales tax wss going to he a terrible nuisance and the effect of it would be to raise the cost of living more than the actual impost under tho tax itself would. The motion was then put to the meeting, but failed to find a supporter.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MS19320419.2.42

Bibliographic details

Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 118, 19 April 1932, Page 7

Word Count
719

SALES TAX PROTEST. Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 118, 19 April 1932, Page 7

SALES TAX PROTEST. Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 118, 19 April 1932, Page 7

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert