TAXING THE FAMILY MAN.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20965, 31 August 1931, Page 12

TAXING THE FAMILY MAN.

Sir,—ln 1913, after the outbreak offwar, the Coalition Government gave the Arbitration Court authority to increase all unionist wages every time the cost of living increased, but they made the grave mistake of not putting any curb on the profits made by importers, manufacturers . and ' retailers, with the result that living costs were unnecessarily increased. The unionist,, did not feel tha effects of the increased cost of living, as he obtained increased award wsiges, but some 200,000 salaried, workers, who had no means of retaliation, paid heftvily for this move of the politicians, which amounted to class legislation. Why did not the salaried and professional classes protest? The only answer to this appears to be that these people, Commonly allied the middle class, realised that a war wa3 on and from a sense of duty "carried on" to the best of their ability, and it can bo taken as proved that the politicians relied on this class taking just that attitude. In 1930 prices started to fall, and the salaried worker, after 17 years of the pendulum swinging against him, appeared to have a chance of getting some of his own back. In 1931 the politicians, under the necessity of balancing the Budget, appear to be again singling out the middle class for special atention, particularly as regards x - the salaried worker drawing from £3OO to £7OO. I refer to the new income tax proposals, which cut down his exemptions very heavily. An instance quoted hereunder shows that a member of this class, after paying 3d in the £1 "dole" contribution and income tax under tho proposed amendments, will find Ms taxation is increased 1000 per cent. A man -with four children earning" £SOO and paying life insurance premiums £2O, paid in 1930, 2s lid tax. This man in 1931 with same income and insurance will pay: Tax, £3 10s; dole, £6 ss; total, £9 15s. Total increase in direct taxation,- £9 12s IdWhy have the politicians no fresh ideas on the subject of taxation ? They appear to slavishly follow a rule of thumb method emanating from the Treasury officials. I suggest to them that in view of the necessity oI the country they could specially tax 'bachelors and spinsters.' This class could easily afford to Is in £1 on income up to £100; 2s in £1 on income up to £2OO ; 3s in £1 on income up to £3OO and over. Such tax would be far more just in its incidence than the present proposals, which hit "good old father" again, though doubtless he is already paying some shillings in tho £1 in indirect taxation. The Official Year Book, 1930, on page 841, gives the total wage-earners, including professional and business men, as disclosed in the 1926 census as 414,673, of which number 101,071 were unionists. It is reasonable to suppose that of the 300,000 odd left at least 200,000 are salaried and professional workers. I appeal to the members of these 200,000 salaried' and profession workers to convene meetings in the four chief cities with the idea of forming an association to protect them from further political lMundering. A very nominal annual subscription would produce ample funds for organisation purposes. It is quite apparent that unless this is done this class will get further impositions when the Budget is framed in 1932. One only requires to remember the prompt . success of tha "Second Division League" during the war to bo certain that such a movement will meet with instant success provided th* class affected pull together. Eatttkb.