NATIONAL FINANCE

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXI, Issue 21875, 10 August 1934, Page 13

NATIONAL FINANCE

EXPENDITURE AND TAXES REVIEW BEFORE BUDGET CHAMBER OF COMIvIfcRCE VIEW As the Budget is to be presented to the House of Representatives in a few days' time, a review at this juncture of the official figures relating to Government expenditure and taxation is not inappropriate, says a statement by the Associated Chambers of Commerce. The figures are disturbing in a number of particulars when comparisons are made. Government expenditure from the Consolidated Fund, and including unemployment, is as follows: 19-28-2!) .. .. £"21,176,000 1929-30 .. .. '25.'200,000 1930-31 .. 24,708,000 1931-32 .. 27,114.000 1932-33 .. .. 2I),?](1,000 1933-34 . . . . 28,445,000 The above table shows how obstinate are the costs of government, and how ineffective in reducing total expenditure have been the considerable economies effected by the Government in particular directions. The total expenditure has not come down at all, but has actually increased in 1933-34 by well over two million pounds, as compared with the previous year, and by over four and a-quarter million, as compared with 1923-29.

As the estimates of departmental expenditure will appear in the House at. the same time as the Budget is brought down, it will be generally expected that full cognisance will have been given to the need for considerably reduced Government expenditure, and that the estimates will have been framed accordingly. The existing burden on the people as a whole is further illustrated by the following table dealing with taxation expressed as a percentage of the national income:—•

£ millions National . PercentIncome Taxation age 1928-29 .. 153.24 17.83 11.63 1929-30 .. 146.52 19.47 13.29 1930-31 . . 108.92 18.59 15.64 1931-32 .. 101.76 17.43 17.03 1932-33 . . 102.96 19.62 19.06 1933-34 . . (not avail- 21.48 (not avail able) able)

The tabic shows that the share of the national income taken by the Government from the people by means of taxes has steadily increased from Hi per cent in 1928-29 to 39 per cent in ]9.'*2-3.'i. Taxation relief in some form or other is fully expected of the Budget by the over-weighted public. They have the additional tax burden of local government rates, and while these are not the concern of the Budget, the fact remains that local government taxes in New Zealand are very much higher per head than in Australia. The position with regard to general Government taxation (exclusive of local governmpnt) is set out in the following table: —• New Zealand Australia 1932-33 . • £l2 17 9 £l4 4 3 (less reductions in 1933-34) 1 2 5 1933-34 . . £l3 18 7 £l3 1 10 The table shows that at the same time as Australian taxation was recluced by £1 2s 5(1 a head. New Zealand taxation was increased by £1 Os ]od a head. Still further relief for the Australian taxpayer has now been announced, but so far the lot of the New Zealand taxpayer has been the sick heart of hope deferred.