TAX WITHDRAWN

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 155, 2 June 1937, Page 9

TAX WITHDRAWN

DEFENCE CONTRIBUTION. RESULT OF CRITICISMS. OPPOSITION APPRECIATION. (United Press Association.—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.) Received June 2, 12.5 p.m. (British Official Wireless.) RUGBY, June I. The Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Neville Chamberlain) winding up the second reading of the debate on the Finance Bill in the House of Commons, announced the withdrawal of the proposed national defence contribution—a graduated tax on the growth of profits. Mr Chamberlain’s' speech followed a sustained and powerful attack oti the proposal, to which Mr Winston Churchill made an important contribution.

After a general defence of tlitf Budget proposals against Opposition criticism, the Prime Minister turned to Part 3 of the Bill, against which criticism had been directed, chiefly from the ranks of the Government’s own supporters. He said lie had to admit that there appeared to be genuine alarm as a result of the proposed new tax, which had held up business to an extent which was very undesirable. Wlmn the Bill went to the committee stage, the Chancellor would not proceed with part 3, providing for the national defence contribution, and, in the meantime, he would work out other proposals for a simpler tax upon profits of industry. This tax would be designed to produce not less tlipn £25,000,000 in a full year. The Bui was read the second time. Mr Chamberlain said he was told that the tax was expected to give a great deal of trouble, to cost a great deal of money, and distract people from attending to the ordinary routine business. On the other hand, industry wished it to be understood that they did not challenge the propriety of his finding the amount he wanted from profits. “It seems to me that I should not only be something less than prudent, but I should be stupid if I were to persist in this particular method of getting what I want, if I can get it by simpler methods and in larger amounts.” That was what, after consultation with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he proposed to do. He would not anticipate what the proposals of the Chancellor would be. This would require a new, financial resolution, and the first intimation the House would have of the nature of the new proposals would be when the Chancellor tabled the resolution, which would be on the earliest possible occasion. At the end of the speech the Opposition Leader (Mr C. R. Attlee) said he thought they ought to recognise the way in which the Prime Minister had met the opinion of the House. It was right that they should recall the fact that they had a Government that was responsive to the will of a democratically elected Assembly.