THE TAXATION QUESTION

Otago Witness, Issue 3017, 10 January 1912, Page 7

THE TAXATION QUESTION

THE POSITION MISSTATED BY THE OFFICIAL FIGURES. WHAT ARE THE FACTS? (By “ Democrat.”) Ministers of the Crown in New Zealand have recently developed a fatal facility for discrediting their own statements by protesting over much. The fact is reflected in the official facts and figures published from time to time._ A case in point is furnished in the most recent section of the Official Year Book, the advance sheets of which were issued a few days ago. Four tables purport to give de. tails of the revenue derived from taxation, direct and indirect, for the 10-year period 1901-2 to 1910-11. Dealing with the figures for the last two years of the decennial period the writer proposes to show how very little dependence can be placed upon the official statement of the position as it affects taxation in this country. According to the first table, appearing on page 685 (Section XXIII; Public Finance), the total amount raised by taxation during the years 1910-11 and 1909-10 was as under : 1910-11 £4,837.322 1909- 4,180,515 Increase for 1910-11 ... £656,806 On pages 686 and 687 there are other tables giving an analysis of the revenue collected by means of direct and indirect taxation. These are clearly and demonstrably in disagreement with the first, although it is only by comparing and checking the figures that the discrepancy becomes apparent. Thus, dealing with indirect taxation, the table on page 685 shows that Customs duties advanced by £356,708, that is from £2,671,121 in 1910 to £3,027,829 in 1911. Excise duties again advanced from £115,367 to £llB,lOO. or by £2731; the increase in excise and Customs duties being thus £359,439. This is apparent in the totals which are given as under : 1910- £3,145,929 1909-10 2,786,490 Increase lor 1910-11 ... £359,439 Now taking the revenue derived from direct taxation, the table on page 687 shows that while the land tax receipts decreased by £13,547, the income tax collections advanced from £316,835 to £407,235, that is, by £90,400. “Other taxes ” advanced from £434,921 to £755,880, or by £320,959. The receipts from direct taxation, therefore, show a net increase of £397,812, as follows : Increased income tax £ 90,400 Other taxes (increase) 320,956 Total increase £411,359 Less decreased land tax —Revenue 13,547 Net increase £307.812 This, again, is apparent in the totals given in this table, which advanced from £1,394,026 in 1909-10, to £1,791,838 in 1910-11. On these figures, therefore, tho increased receipts in the shape of taxation revenue for 1910-11 were : Indirect taxation £359,439 Direct taxation 397,812 Making a total of ...£757,251 Yet in the summary of taxation given in the first Year Book table, the total appears as £656,806 only. It is necessary to be thus particular in reciting the facts, because it unfortunately happens, in these days of degenerate Liberalism, that when-

ever official facts and figures supplied by the Government of New Zealand are called into question, the cry is at once raised that deliberate and wilful misrepresentation is being entered upon for party purposes. Before the writer finishes he intends proving that the misrepresentation is all on the other side, for there are even graver discrepancies apparent in the figures supplied by Sir Joseph Ward in his Financial Statement on the Bth September last, and those now given in the advance sheets of the Year Book, issued just before Christmas.

« * * * - Just why it should be deemed necessary to conceal the truth upon this question of taxation the writer is not able to say. The fact remains—and" it is a startling one—that, between the Prime Minister s Budget summary of taxation receipts and | tho Year Book’s statement of tho position, there is a discrepancy of more than a quarter of a million. The Year Book table (page 685), as already indicated, places the total amount of’revenue derived from taxation during 1910-11 at £4,837,322. But it is evident from the figures supplied by Sir Joseph Ward in his Financial Statement that this by no means covers the ground. Five items alone in that Statement make up a total of over £5,000,000. They are as follow : • Customs receipts £3,027,829 ' Stamps (Stamps Department) ... 819,839 Land tax 628,723 Income tax 407,235 Boor duty 118,100

Total £6,001,726 Thus, moreover, takes no account of registration and other fees (£88,305), marine (£42,918), and miscellaneous receipts amounting to £296,099, a proportion at least of which should certainly be included under the heading of taxation. And, yet again, no account is taken of t’je increased fares over the railways, i/nposed as part of his taxation scheme by the Minister of Finance under the 1909 Budget, and classed by Sir Joseph Ward himself as increased taxation. To meet an estimated increased expenditure of £330,000 the Prime Minister said in the House on tho 10th of November, 1909 : “ I propose to obtain from the altered system of death duties an additional £150,000; by abolishing the break in the long-distance mileage rates upon the railways, making the rates uniform to Id ner mile second class and lj,d per mile first class, £IOO,OOO per annum; by the adjustment of the income tax, making it a graduated one, £80,000; by imposing 1 per cent, additional upon the true value of all dutiable goods, £50,000; by charging 2j per cent, on the total receipts of race clubs, £38,000; from the banks, £30,000. This gives a total increase of revenue of £448,000, leaving a balance of £IIB,OO0 —not, in my opinion, too large a sum in order to provide for unforscen expenditure.” In view of the figures quoted and of Sir Joseph Ward’s statement, as also of the discrepancy occurring in the tables already referred to, what possible reliance can be placed upon the Year Book statement of the’ position ? If the Prime Minister’s figures are correct (and dealing with the one item of Stamps Department, £819,839, we may point out that Sir Joseph Ward has himself discriminated between these collections and the Postal Department receipts amounting to £816,306), then the Year Book is clearly at fault. If Sir Joseph Ward’s figures are incorrect—but it is out of the question to accept such an alternative—then his reputation as a financier goes by the board altogether. And here the question arises ; “ Why has this been done?” The answer is suggested by the per capita revenue table (page 669) appearing in the A"ear Book which places the revenue per head of the population derived from taxation during 1910-11 at £4 16s lid, instead of as it should be, considerably over £5. Sir Joseph Ward’s figures make it easily more than that amount, and Air Arthur Myers, in speaking upon the Financial Statement, placed it at £5 8s 7d. As reported in Hansard ho said : —“ I find on examining the figures for the years ending the 31st March, 1901 and 1910, that the total taxation per head had certainly increased. The total taxation in 1911 was £5 8s 7d.” No attempt has thus far been made to contravert Air Alyers’s statement, which has been quoted far and wide. The Year Book figures are grossly misleading; it i would appear they have been made designedly so. Why? Tho public has a right to know the reason for the jugglery of figures that has taken place, it lias a right to know, moreover, who is responsible for this attempt to mislead it upon a question that vitally affects its welfare. It is evident the Ward Government has become alarmed at its own unenviable reputation of having made New Zealand the most heavily taxed country, per head of population, in the British Empire. It is further apparent that it has “ cooked ”

the official records, in its vain attempt to prove that the per capita taxation is some 12a or 13s per head lighter than it really is. And. having done that, it has done more to discredit its own “Facts” and “ Figures ” than its opponents could liave accomplished by many months of fiery disputations. Why cannot our “ Liberal ” politicians be decently honest ?