NOT A "CRUSHING BURDEN"

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23299, 17 September 1937, Page 8

NOT A "CRUSHING BURDEN"

Some members of the Government party in Parliament have conveniently short memories. Their opinions on taxation, for instance, appear to be adjustable according to the circumstances of the moment. Mr Barclay, seconding the Address-in-Reply motion in the House of Representatives, spoke in almost derisive terms of the complaint that taxation has become a crushing burden on the people' of the Dominion. It becomes only too clear, from what has been said already by Government members in the House, that the taxpayer need have little hope that relief will be extended to him this year. Mr Barclay not only denies that taxation is too high, but he claims also that the increases made by the party he represents have been more than justified by the benefits attributable to them. It will be recalled that proposals for increased taxation were so justified in last year's Financial Statement. A first charge on the national income, said the Minister of Finance, should be the care of the aged and ailing. The point was conceded at the time, as it was bound to be; but it was also brought to the Minister's notice that, without imposing extra taxation, he had in prospect an additional yield from existing sources of over £ 3,ooo,ooo—far more than sufficient to provide pensions on the scale contemplated. Actually more than £5,000,000 was added to the total revenue from taxation last year, and apparently the argument still is that the Government cannot do with one penny less than it is now collecting from the pockets of individual taxpayers and from the profits of companies. Unlike the Prime Minister, Mr Barclay even seems satisfied with the existing incidence. It does not appear to him that the man of moderate income is carrying an unduly heavy burden, although he is paying on a larger scale now than he was prior to the changes made by the Government last year. Such a man, in Mr Barclay's judgment, ought to be entirely satisfied with his lot—just as satisfied, he appears to suggest, as the fortunate individual who is in the £ 10,000-a-year income class. Men with that income are to be found in all of the main cities and in Invercargill, Mr Barclay affirms, whereas reference to official statistics shows that there are only four individuals whose assessable income exceeds £9OOO a year. But that is beside the point. Both Mr Barclay and Mr Thorn, who moved the Address-in-Reply, are convinced that extra provision for pensions would not have.been possible without the imposition of more taxation. And, although the yield has vastly exceeded requirements as originally -estimated, they do not admit that 'the taxpayer now has any claim on the Government's consideration. Mr Thorn, indeed, goes to the length of justifying the increase in taxation on the ground that Labour's election manifesto made no reference whatever to taxation. It 'would be difficult to find a more flagrant repudiation of pledges spoken many times if not actually committed to the printed page. In November, 1935, the then Leader of the Opposition had no doubts about his party's attitude towards taxation. Perhaps Mr Thorn has no wish to remember that Mr Savage told an audience prior to the election, in unequivocal language, that "further taxation is out of the question." Readjustment of taxation, he said, must not be understood to mean increased taxation, " which has already been overdone." Not even Mr Thorn can pretend now that what Mr Savage said prior to the election did not represent the policy of the Labour Party. The country was wooed by promises, and it lias discovered what the most vital of them were worth. Yet Mr Thorn has the presumption to suggest, at this stage, that no Government can claim a better record than this one can in the performance of its pledges!