30/- Flat Rate or Graduated Scale

Manawatu Times, Volume LV, Issue 7321, 3 September 1930, Page 7

30/- Flat Rate or Graduated Scale

Unemployment Levy Again Under Fire

Government Declines to Alter Tax

Per Press

Association,

WELLINGTON, Last Night. When the House of Representatives resumed at 7-30 amendments to the Unemployment Bill were introduced by Governor-General’s message. Replying to Mr Coates Hon. S. G. Smith outlined the effect of the amendments m addition to those which he had previously stated would be introduced. Ho said it was proposed to include a new clause providing that before any person should bo, entitled to the 'benefits of the scheme he must liavo been a resident in New Zealand at least six months. It was also proposed that tho board should liavo discretionary power to pay sustenance allowance to the wife of tho contributor instead of to flic contributor himself. A member: “The same as tho family allowance.”

any unemployment insurance scheme in the world.

Mr W. D. Lysnar congratulated the Government on its decision. It was idle to contend that the bulk of the burden was being placed on the working man.

Mr J. W. Poison said wago workers paid only about one-tenth of the Customs taxation and no income taxation. Peoplo who were unlikely to benefit from tho schcmo would pay the major share of tho contributions. Sir W. Nash said the case that had been put up bv Air Poison would not bear examination. If his contentions were correct it would mean that a few hundred peoplo enjoyed nineteen-twen-tieths of tho luxuries in this country. He suggested that there should be a lowc. fiat rato of contributions plus a tax of one shilling on every £IOO of taxable income

Mr Smith: “Yes, exactly the same as the family allowance.”

Mr K. A. Wright said it seemed to him an injustice 10 impose a tax of 30s per year on people who at tho present time were ba.elv able to mako both • ends meet witirut. indulging in any luxury, lie suggested that such people should bo exempted from the levy. Mr E. J. Howard supported this view.

When consideration of the Bill was resumed in Committee Mr Smith said very careful attention had been given to the request that a graduated scale should bo substituted for a flat rats of contributions. It had, however, been found that such a change would be very difficuit to put into effect.

Mr A. M. Samuel said it'was incorrect to contend that the Consolidated Fund would contribute at the rate of pound for pound to the fund. It would only contribute pound for pound to the, expenditure. For instance, if 400,000 contributors paid in 30s per year yielding £OOO,OOO and the board spent only £IOO,OOO the share paid by the Consolidated Fund would be only £30,000. Ho believed it was unfair that a man on tho bread lino should have to pay as much as a man with a big income. He proposed to vote for tho amendment. Hon S. G. Smith said Mr Samuel's argument was based on the supposition that the board would expend only £IOO,OOO out of £300,000 contributed through the levy. He • was satisfied that in such a case every member of Parliament would insist on altering the personnel of the board. The objection raised by Mr Wiight was already met by the Bill which gave the board discretion to grant exemptions in cases of the nature mentioned by Air Wright. Air Samuel said if the board spent £-100,000 the Consolidated Fund would contribute only £200,000. He considered this was a likely amount for the first year of the scheme’s operation. The Bill had been astutely drawn against the working man of this country.

Mr M. J. Savage declared such a contention was humbug. There were graduated scales in operation elsewhere. He would move an amendment to the effect that consideration of the clause should be postponed and tho Government should be recommended to substitute a graduated scalo for the flat rate. Mr IV. V. Bodkin, chairman of Committees, said he could not accept the amendment in the abstract form as submitted by Mr Savage, whereupon Mr Savage moved that consideration of the clause should be postponed. Mr H. E. Holland said ho could not understand why the Government could not have devised a graduated scale. With the advice of experts at its disposal it should have been able to submit a scheme that would not have been open to the charge that the costs of collection would be too high. Ho said members in voting for the amendment would really be voting in favour of a graduated scale. Mr A. Harris said tho references to tho flat rate were unfair. It was incorrect to say everyone paid the same amount because ono half of the contributors would cokfloemfwyp shrd cmf tirbutions would como from the Consolidated Fund and would be provided mainlv from tho income taxpayers.

Tho debate was continued until the time for the adjournment of tho House when a division was taken on . Mr Savage's amendment which was rejected by 46 to 25. The House rose till 2.30 to-morrow.

. Mr H. T. Armstrong said the Government proposed to levy on the. lowest paid worker the highest premium of