SEVEN MILLIONS

Otago Daily Times, Issue 24282, 26 April 1940, Page 7

SEVEN MILLIONS

DAILY EXPENDITURE THE BUDGET PROPOSALS COMMENT IN THE PRESS NEW TAX CRITICISED I (United Press Association) (By Electric Telegraph—Copyright) LONDON. Apl. 24. (Received Apl. 25. at 9 p.m.) “Think before you spend.” was the keynote of Sir John Simon’s broadcast in explanation of the Budget. Stating that the year’s expenditure of £2,667,000,000 represented over £7,000,000 a day he made three suggestions:— 1. “Make a purchase only if you are sure you should have it. 2. “Consider whether the article is from overseas. 3. “ Decide 'how much income you can save weekly. Money saved can be used to buy savings certificates or defence bonds, or be in a savings bank. “ We are engaged in the most expensive" war of all time. These taxes are spread over the whole population as justly as possible. The needs of the fighting services must' come first, the needs of the expoit trade second, the home needs must be reduced as far as possible.” The Daily Mail, in a leader says:— “The purchase tax makes the Budget bad for the shopkeeper and the trading community. Much probing into the structure of various industries will be necessary before a basis for the tax can be found.” The Daily Mail asserts that* the lax will lead to .increased prices and increased wage demands, resulting in the very process the Government desired to avoid. Whatever its purpose the response of the trading community would be hostile. The Manchester Guardian, in a leader, says:—“The Chancellor’s courage failed him and the Budget is less drastic than the situation warrants The estimated expeiffiiture is well below the rate of the Germans' spending, which is nothing to be proud of but a reflection on the imperfect mobilisation of our resources.” The Daily Telegraph says: “ The .Chancellor was aware that he could rely on unanimous support of the country for a bold and realistic approach to the problem of meeting the stupendous cost of modern war He has taken full advantage of that assurance to impose .heavy increases m taxation and whatever criticism may be raised in detail there can be none against his general principle of gathering in large additional revenues out of the taxpayers’ pockets.” The Times characterises it as a Budget which possesses the great merit of stating without concealment or softening the truth of the financial position. . • . .. The Daily Express criticises the pioposed “purchase tax” foreshadowed by the Chancellor and says in effect it is a sales tax. although it carries another name. , . The Daily Herald adds to this criticism that such tax would increase the cost of living. Credits for Departments •A White Paper lists the credits for Government departments? for 1940-41. They total £147,545.000. the details being as follows: • . nnft Ministry of home security £96,314,000. intruding £250,000 for evacuation. £5,250,000 for the protection of vital Se The e Ministry of Health £40,000,000. 'including £16,000,000 for evacuation. The Ministry of Agriculture £4,775,000. including £300.000 for the woman’s land army. The Ministry of Food £2,100,000. The Ministry of Information £1.883,000. including £1,500.000 for PU of Supply, £984,000. The Department of Agriculture for Scotland £560,000; „ The Ministry of Economic Warfare £547,000. The Ministry of Shipping £382,000. DEBATE ON BUDGET WITHOUT PRECEDENT ONE LINE OF CRITICISM DEMANDS NOT HEAVY ENOUGH (British Official Wireless) RUGBY, Apl. 24, (Received Apl. 25, at 7 p.m.) The debate on the Budget was jvithout precedent. Speaker after speaker from all sides criticised the Budget for not making greater demands, and suggesting that £2,000,000,000 was inadequate to finance the war effort, which members of the House of Commons compared with Germany’s expenditure of £3,000,000,000. The debate was opened by Mr F. W. Pethick-Lawrence, for the Opposition. Commenting on the burden of taxation and the- manner in which the demands uf the War Budget had been met, he said: “The longer I live the greater grows my admiration of the British people, who uphold traditions that extend for many centuries, and hold the forefront place in the whole world.” Mr Pethick-Lawrence pointed out that the problem confronting the country was how to turn peace economy into war economy “Unless great' sacrifices are made sacrifices of the method and of life of the great bulk of our population, we shall not be able to give that support to the forces that are fighting our batles for freedom overseas which they ought to receive. We dare, not, for their sake or our own sake, hold back the full 'measure of support which they ought to have from us, and there is no surer method than that of taxation for enabling that to be carried through.” He criticised the failure of the Government to obtain full employment of the nation’s labour and insisted on the necessity for observing equality of sacrifice between all classes. He reserved the attitude of the Labour Parly to the proposed sales tax until the Government bad proved it would not mean aggravation of a tendency he already perceived to unequal distribution of taxes. He agreed that the direct taxation imposed in September was high, as it was reasonable, but as the war went on the habits of lift and the whole structure of society would tend to change, and the time would come when more drastic taxes would have to be imposed. Mr H. Graham White for the Liberals. expressed doubts if the expenditure of £2.667,000 000 was sufficiently 1 high. The Allies had overwhelming superiority over Germany provided that they'mobilised their resources as rapidly as possible. The country would not be satisfied until that was done. He feared that the Budget was not realistic, and did not take sufficient account of the fact that they were wafiinf? a totalitarian war Life was harder in Germany France and Holland than in Britain. They could not in safety or honour be satisfied unless - they were making sacrifices equal to those of their Allies. Mr White also reserved the attitude of the Liberals to the sales tax.