THE UNEMPLOYMENT TAX

Otago Daily Times, Issue 21643, 13 May 1932, Page 8

THE UNEMPLOYMENT TAX

1 riE. uncmiuuimui" •-- TO THE EDITOR. Sir—The payers of the unemployment tax are waking up to the injustice under which they are suffering I am not opposed to the tax, but there should be equality of sacrifice on the part of all August 1, 1931, to April 30, 1932, the salary and wages class have been called on to pay 3d in the £ on earning , but a larger sum is being collected tiom "declared income" taxpayers. Take: the amount dealt with by "Inequality in your issue of the 11th mst. During the nine months on an annual salary ot £240 the salary man, B, has paid on £IBO at 3d in the £—a total of £2 ss. Surely the "declared income man, A. on the same annual income, should pay the same tax for the same period, but he is called on to pay more On a declared income of £240 lor tlw veav ended March 31, 1931, paid the first instalment of tax on August 1, 1931, on one-third of that amount—that is, on £BO at 3d in the £, a tax ot £l. Again on February 1, 1932, he paid a second instalment of £l. According to the instructions on the declaration of income form with the same declared income tor the year ended March 31, 1932, A would have on May 1, 1932, to pay again .on one-third—that is, on £BO at 3d making a third sum of £l, and a total of £3 acainst B's £2 ss, but the post office officials demand on May 1, 80 times one shilling for the quarter from February 1 1932, to April 30, making a. total ol £(3 for the three quarterly periods. ' This tax on declared income applies also to members of the salary and wage class on their income from any other source than salary or wages, so that this class is to some extent in the same position as those on declared income only. Now I will show how the inequality arises, and how, in my opinion, the tax should have been imposed on declared income. On income declared for the year ended March 31, 1931, the two payments made on November 1, 1931, and February 1, 1932—that is, for six months from August 1, 1931, to January 31, 193 A should have been levied on a-quarter, and not on a-third, on £6O at 3d in the £ each time, making £1 10s. Then on May 1 1932, on income declared for the year ended March 31, 1932, on another quarter, and not on a-third—that is, on foO at 3d making 15s, and a total of £2 ss, the same as paid by the payer on salary or Wa j J t e9 seems absurd that the payer of tax on declared income should be asked to nav Is in the £ on the period from February 1, 1932, to April 30, when that tax is levied on salary class only from the Ist inst. I am a taxpayer on declared income, and have offered at four post offices to pay the third instalment at 3d in the £, but all officers want a shilling, which I have refused to pay. I have writen to Mr Munro. M.P., on the matter, and also to the Minister of Employment, but so far I have had no reply from the former, and the latter will not yet have received my letter. Declared income taxpayers should get together and enter a.united protest against the injustice meted out to them.—l am, g"g J F. HttGENDORF. North-East Valley, May 11. IThe tax of Is in the £ superseded the tax of 3d in the £ on declared income after the payment of the latter taxshacl been made on February 1. the <\ctof 1931 provided for the payment ot two-thirds of the income in equal instalments on November 1 and February 1. The provision in that Act, under which navmenf on one-third of the income tor the year ended March 31,. 1931 was payable on May 1 was rejected by this year's legislation. An ofter of payment at the rate of 3d in the £ was, therefore, riehtlv refused by the ofhcials.-~M., O.D.T.]