THE BACHELOR VERSUS THE FAMILY

New Zealand Times, Volume XLII, Issue 9755, 3 September 1917, Page 3

THE BACHELOR VERSUS THE FAMILY

To the Editor, "N.Z. Times.” Sir,—What has democracy come to, when Sir Joseph Ward is as good as backing the bachelor and his selfish savings against the family! Sir Joseph's liberal, ity land Liberalism disclose themselves in his generous suggestion that a concession of £2o (of taxable income) be allowed for every child, and nothing, so far as I can gather, for the wife! Truly this is liberality itself! Let us see how it works out. Take a married man with a family of four children to support; and, let us suppose, he is in receipt of a salary (dr income) of .£6OO a year. He probably has to employ a se?Vant. He can, practically, save nothing in these times. Take your bachelor (with no dependents). He can save, with ease, i'4oo per annum out of a salary of TC00; yet Sir Joseph Ward would, in his remarkable generosity, take by direct taxation only two or three pounds per annum more from the bache. lor than from the husband with wife, four children and servant to maintain. Think of it! Kemember. too, that this husband is paying in indirect taxation nearly TICO a year I This is what we call God’s own country! Are our democrats and people’s friends in Parliament going to tolerate this intolerable injustice any longer? The idea that bachelors are to' be driven out of the country by such discrimination is puerile. Surely it is transparently fair and reasonable that every unmarried man or woman (with no dependents), who is in receipt of an income of Tl5O a year.. and who is entitled to a vote, should contribute something in direct taxation to the revenue of the country. Why not let taxation begin at TloO, with remissions or concessions for all dcP< Let husband and wife be exempted to J 3300 (i.e., let taxation begin for them at -£3C6), and let at least .£SO bo conceded for every child up to the age when its education is completed (or when it is called upon to earn its own living). Even under such a system the husband and family must be inequitably dealt with, BO long as our iniquitous system of taxing necessaries of life is tolerated. Cannot some of our prominent citizens organise a public meeting to discuss the ■ntolerable exploitation of the necessaries of life deliberately connived at by the National Government? The question of the present unrighteous incidence of tax. ation calls for drastic scrutiny. The curious prevarication of Ministers regarding the conscription of "nineteeners” also calls for indignant protest.—l am, etc '’ " LIBERAL.” September Ist.