VOTES AND TAXES

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 3 June 1930, Page 2

VOTES AND TAXES

WHY EXPENDITURE GROWS "By successive exemptions the number of income tax payers in Great Britain has now been reduced to 2 150,000. Meanwhile the electorate has •been increased to 28,800,000, which means that there are 12 electors who pay no income fax facing one elector who has to pay that tax," writes Mr Harold Cox in the "Sunday Times." ''lnevitably the politicians, side with the 12. As ja result, all our political parties in the last few decades have been engaged in using the money of the taxpayer to buy the votes of the mass of the electorate. The purchases are effected by providing, lit the expense of the national exchequer, ser ; vices which under a healthier condition of national life the individual would provide for himself. That is the essential reason why our expenditure continues to grow." It will not be reduced until we alter our electoral system and go back to*the sound principle that taxation and representation should go together. The only way of getting back to that principle "is to make the income tax universal. In 1914 Mr Arthur Henderson, speaking in the House of Commons, said that he had "come to the conclusion that the only fair way to treat the working classes was by a graduated wage tax.' Four years later Mr Philip Snowden spoke even mom strongly on this point. He said he could imagine 'nothing move harmful to the best interests of the country than that we should have a large section of the community able to influence the policy of the country and yet altogether relieved from financial responsibility for that policy.' It would be difficult to find a better statement of the whole position."

WEEKLY LEVY ON WAGES

Discussing the subject, the "WeekEnd" Review" says:—"Every employee of the Government, from the junior clerk to the Attorney-General, receives his salary less income tax. He never feels the tax because he never handles the money, and except when the tax is suddenly raised the adjustment of expenditure to income is automatic and smooth. Is there any reason why all public companies should not adopt the same system and pay all salaries less income tax? The advantages to the revenue would be considerable; the tax would come in a regular stream, and not in sudden spates, and the Government would be saved the necessity of some of its short-term borrowings. Moreover, there would never be arrears. But why should the system he confined to the salaried classes? There are thousands of wage-earners liable to tho tax who now escape payment; there are hundreds of thousands who, if the tax became a universal liability, as it should, can only be got at in this way. Their individual contributions would bo small, but if they were paid, they would yield a considerable revenue, be economical to collect, and — most important of all —would deal a shrewd blow for pure politics, against corruption and exploitation of the few by the many."