THE BURDEN OF TAXATION

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23057, 7 December 1936, Page 12

THE BURDEN OF TAXATION

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Mr Hall pursues me everywhere, with insulting and odious taunts. Now. it is my spiritual poverty, now my luck of mental balance, and sobriety of argument at which he sneers. But why? What justification can he urge? Am I not posing as a frog, and who, in his sober senses, would look for piety or logic in a frog? Who deny the poor fellow his prerogative of just an occasional croak? No similar, excuse is available for Mr Hall. We know that, so far from being a frog, he is a human being—a gentleman, presumably, and therefore, in honour bound to conduct any controversial dispute in which he may find himself involved along the lines prescribed by the statute of good breeding and good manners. His eulogy of plain blunt speaking I heartily endorse, but rudeness and discourtesy are another pair of shoes altogether, and it is fairly obvious that these are the shoes that Mr Hall was wearing at the time he sat down to indite his most recent epistle. I do implore him to call a halt and abstain from any further personalities. Mr Hall makes a gallant effort to persuade his readers that the Government most worthy of respect and admiration is that which lays the heaviest burden of taxation upon its subjects. This is, apparently, the explanation of the high esteem in which he holds our rulers of to-day. "Away with this rubbishy talk of undue hardship," he seems to say. Take off your cap to the Labour Government because it is taxing you up to the hilt. He can find only contempt for the comparative lenience of the Forbes Government, and the genuine anxiety it always displayed to spare, as far as might be, /he pocket of the taxpayer. To hear Mr Hall talk, one would jump to the conclusion that, as long as they had the wherewithal to pay, the increase of taxation came as a boon and a blessing to men, and that nobody in his sober senses would dream of growling, or complaining of undue hardship, simply because he had now to shell out 3s where previously a single one sufficed. Possibly it is just as well for New Zealand that Mr Hall is not her Minister of Finance. He might feel tempted to excel even Mr Nash in his exactions. Mr Nash's charges are three times as high as those of last years Government, and wh* if Mr Hall should elect to go one better and treble those of Mr Nash? Can you not fancy him, speaking ex cathedra, to the taxpayers: " You have had too easy a time in the past, but it's going to be different now. As long as youve any cash left the sky will be my limit. My predecessors were far too lenient. They have given you nothing worse than the merest flick of a whip, but, under me, there will be a change, lor I shall chastise you with scorpions, and mighty hard stingers you'll find them to be." Hitherto, I have said little or nothing of the indirect taxation, which adds so tremendously to the weight of the burdens the public is being called upon to bear. Were we to draw a graph of the cost of living to-day, we should be amazed at its recent rapid ascent, and realise, perhaps, more clearly than we do, the startling inroads it is making into our purse. Whether we be rich or poor, this indirect taxation hits us all alike, right hard, and is, beyond contradiction, greatly accentuated by the legislation and Socialistic ideals of our present extravagant Government. A partial explanation of the increasing growth of the indirect taxation imposed on us is to be found in the introduction of the 40-hour week. Not only has this piece of legislation caused considerable confusion and dislocation in the business domain, together with frequent inconvenience to the shopping public—not only has it thrown men and women out of work and added thus to the long list of the unemployed —but it has also, with its shorter hours and higher rate of pay, led to a steep rise in the price of every necessity of life.

Another manifestation of the indirect taxation under which we groan is to be seen in the enormous increase of the land tax and other oppressive imposts with which it pleases our present rulers to harass the commercial companies of New Zealand. Quite recently I read of one of our companies which had this year been reluctantly compelled to reduce its habitual dividend of 5 per cent, to 3J per cent., for no other reason whatsoever than because of the enormous increase in the amount of the land tax demanded by the Government. It is obvious then that it is the Government, and the Government alone, that every single shareholder in that company has to thank for this year’s resulting loss of income, and it seems to me that investors in other companies also have just cause for the fear that history may repeat itself, and that they themselves may be mulcted in a similar fashion of a portion of their annual revenue. Another contributory factor to the indirect taxation to which we are subjected is the huge army of sustenance men—-25,000, in all, I believe—which has been enrolled in our midst since Labour’s accession to power. It is freely rumoured that there is a considerable number among these sustenance men who, though incapacitated' neither by bodily infirmity nor extreme old age from rendering some useful service to the community, are what is known as “work shy” and prefer to remain in idleness. How far this may be so I do not know, but will content myself with the observation that the necessity of supporting these sustenance men is undoubtedly a further case of indirect taxation, and that, if it is a fact that there are numerous shirkers in their ranks, it seems pretty rough luck that the workers should be called upon to contribute to the maintenance of these and to keep themselves as well. —I am, etc., Taxpaying Frog.