“THE GENTLE APOLOGIST”

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23054, 3 December 1936, Page 17

“THE GENTLE APOLOGIST”

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Arising out of my letter of November 27 are two matters that call for my attention: (1) Your footnote: (2) “Measure of Value’s” letter. Before dealing with your footnote I wish to draw your attention to the problem that confronted the Government on taking over the control of the affairs of the country. It was the great number of unemployed and the depressed secondary industries. This problem was mostly due to the Coalition Party’s lack of knowledge of finance and the maladministration of taxation, or through its being dishonest to its professed political opinions. The present Government recognised the fact that, if .unemployment was to be solved and industry was to be stimulated, the incidence of taxation had to be altered so that the great mass of the people could receive increased purchasing power. To do this it increased pensions, reduced working hours, restored cuts, etc. Most of these measures were opposed by you, or you claimed they would be disastrous to the country. After 12 months what do we find? In your issue of November 26 you quote the Prime Minister as follows;—“ There are still thousands of men needing work and willing to earn their living, and with the undoubted improvement in industry and trade there are hundreds of employers who want labour.” In reference to this you say, "If there are men willing to work and prove their adaptability by accepting work even though it may not be altogether congenial, it should be a simple matter to satisfy the requirements of the labour market.”

In my last letter I pointed out that taxation scientifically applied was the solution. I also quoted the Prime Minister’s attitude to the question of taxation. I pointed out to you that you would gain the respect of all who understood if you would outline your views You omitted to do this, but wrote a foot-note that had little reference to anything I had written. You said: “We claim that a closer investigation than is at present made should be conducted into the circumstances of the recipient of sustenance.” You also stated that there had been 5000 persons who had made false statements and that the expression that no persons should be allowed to “scrounge” upon the nation was not yours, but that of the Minister of Public Works. I quite agree with you. and I am sure most people will do so in most of the above, but I must say I am sorry you cannot endorse the statements of the Minister. Is it because the Minister referred to both big and little “scroungers”? I can assure you my experience leads me to know that it takes many thousands of relief and sustenance men to become as big a burden on the State as one big “ scrounger ” is.

From the Prime Minister’s statement it appears that the problem is now fast becoming one of getting men to go to jobs and not of finding jobs for men. On the one hand we have the relief and sustenance men clamouring for more assistance, on the other farmers and employers stating that assistance is too much and is encouraging men not to take jobs. The questions that arise are: What are the best methods to get men to take jobs offering? Should the Government reduce sustenance, etc., and force men to take jobs, or should it allow the demand by employers for men to force wages up to the fullest economic level the employers can pay? The writer has no hesitation in saying that the Government will be quite justified in further raising Doth relief and sustenance rates, that it is in the best interests of the employers and the country that they should do so. and also that the economic level of wages should be found by the demand for men by industry The only people who would have any cause to fear this are the big "scroungers” referred to by the Minister of Public Works. Allow me to repeat that taxation levied on the working class helped to bring about the unemployment problem, and taxation levied on scientific lines will solve it. One method of levying taxation to the benefit of the nation—paradoxically though it may seem—is that of assisting the unemployed worker to the fullest extent. So far as the industrialist is concerned, whether he be an employer or worker, he has everything to gain by this being done. Now. Sir, I have placed my views clearly before you. I advocate increased assistance being given to the unemployed, and I claim that the greater the assistance along with the necessary controlling legislation the quicker we shall solve the problem. I ask you, as you aim to create public opinion, to outline where I am wrong, and also to give your readers your views on what should be done by the Government. The position now, is quite clear. Do you advocate a reduction in assistance to the unemployed, thus forcing them into submitting to the unscrupulous employer? Or do you stand for their being assisted as at present and allowing economic law to operate amongst the employers of labour? I will refer to the content of the letter by “Measure of Value” at the first opportunity. The subject matter of his letter is of the greatest importance to the people, and I shall endeavour to meet his request.—l am, etc.. C. M. Moss.

North-East Valley, December 2. [We regret having to disappoint xMr Moss, but we hope he will realise „hat we are really not called upon to enter into arguments with correspondents who present confused views in our columns.—Ed. O.D.T.]