THE BACK-BLOCKS.

Otago Witness, Issue 3403, 4 June 1919, Page 53

THE BACK-BLOCKS.

A SUGGESTED NEW POLICY. TO THE EDITOB.

Sir, —In my two former letters I advocated cetftain services being run on national co-operative lines. In the case of free carriage of produce and foodstuffs of all kinds to and from the distributing centres I proposed the loss of revenue to be made up by taxing all incomes from £1 upwards at the rate of so much per unit of £l. At the time I wrote the above I had a larger scheme in my mind, which was that all taxation be> collected in this way, otherwise it would only have added to the. multitudinous methods of revenue-raising already in force. «

Thore have been many advocates of single taxation, but so far as I am aware it has always been a land tax. "I am not in favour of this method, although I think it may be a fairer ono than the present. As a substitute to the above I advocate a single tax in the form of a tax pro. rata of ail incomes on the principle _ of co operation as practised by butter factories. The outstanding idea of co-operation is that every member of ~the comrjany directly benefits the other members through his presence and production, and therefore there to be no discrimination in the returns derived from the sale of the produce of the members no matter how far they may be from the Centre. It is the above principle I wish to be applied to the whole of the producers of this Dominion, for every single . member (no matter who he or she may be} Is directly dependent on the presence and production of the other members of the community for all his benefits. The following is an illustration of my meaning:—A local branch of a bank is opened in a certain township of a farming district. The manager receives £3OO per year. Now, it naturally follows that this bank manager owes his position and salary directly to the presence in his district of the particular population already settled there. The local shopkeeper also owes his' income to their presence. The same with the hotel and all others wh> may be trading with the farmers. The farmers themselves owe their wealth to the fact that other farmers had previously settled nearer the main exporting centre and brought roads and railways within reach of the further lot. The cities owe their wealth to the presence and production of all the farmers both near and far, and so on ad lib. Whatever position anyone may hold, he directly owes it to the presence of other members of the community, so that we reach the incontrovertible fact that New Zealand is populated by a community with all the essentials of a cooperative company, and yet has not cooperation. It is with the object of rectifying (in the interests of the farmers) this anomaly that I am writing these letters, and as mine is only a voice crying in the wilderness, I ask that others in a better position to be heard than I take up the cry. "-" - Now, as New Zealand cannot be a cooperative country with various methods of raising rovonue, I have of the only fair way possible, and _ that is for each member of the community to pay for the governing of his country according as ho benefits. Eor instance, a bank manager having a salary of £3OO per year would pay four times as much to the revenue as a farmer or town 'worker whose income was only £2OO. For it naturally follows that the .one who gets £BOO out of his fellowcountrynien'B presence and industry in trie country ehould pay four times as much, lo the

revenue for the common weal as one who only benefited to the extend of £2OO. I will now detail the oppressive and unfair present system of revenue-raising. We will first of all take the Customs. Tho result of this method is that a married man with, say, six children, and earning £2OO per annum, has to pay revenue for eight units of the population, whereas a single man earning the same amount pays for only one. We will suppose from the above, for argument's sake, that the married man pays four times as much through the Customs as the single one, and that the total amount paid is £4O: it means that the single man pays £5 out of each £IOO of income, and a married man £2O. Under the co-operative system whioh I advocate the average of £25 of revenue collected from both from £IOO of income would be equally divided, each paying £l2 10s per £IOO of income, in place of the married man £2O and the single man £5 as under the present system. We have here a simple solution of one of the burning questions I forecasted in my _ last letter 1 would solve by single tax on incomes. To solve another problem by the same method. It has ' been the way of Colonial Treasurers, 'when they wanted increased revenue and did not wish to tax the necossaries of life too severely, to pounce on some other articles in daily and heavy use which would yield a good sum. I mention two only of these —beer and tobacco. Now, I believe the revenue derived from these two items is about equal, and amounts to £600,000 each; therefore it is with a burning sense of injustice that the smoker smokes his pipe or drinks his beer, realising as he does that he is paying for the man who does neither of these things (myself among the number, by the way). Under single tax of incomes this portion of the present revenue would fall on smoker > and non-smoker and drinker . and non-drinker alike. 'Another burning sense of injury would be rectified in the removal of the present unfair income tax for the wealthier half of the' population pay all the various taxes the other half pay and an additional tax besides. They would, of course, pay more under my co-operative system, but it would at least be fair, for they would be asked to pay no more per unit of income than the poorest inhabitant of the country. Now in working this system out I came in conflict with Protection versus Freetrade, and I' thought I had reached a deadlock, for no matter how hard I tried (in the interests of the farmer) ttf do away with the protection of • certain town industries which required bolstering- up by the Customs tariff, there was always a good deal in its favour cropping up from a national point of view that. I had momentarily given it up as a necessary evil, when the whole question waß overwhelmingly placed in. favour of Freetrade once I began to puzzle it out from an Imperialistic standpoint. We are all aware that a very great calamity was narrowly averted during the past four years of war, and it is the thought of this, and the realisation it may come again at some future date which is the reason for calling Imperial conferences to discuss how best to weld the Empire together as a defensive unit. Now, it is a well-known strategy in war to have a large majority of any fighting force gathered in one body, with muchsmaller bodies of reserves to call on in case of need. I therefore, in thinking out the case for Freetrade, applied this principle to ,the Empire, and decided that, as Britain. was financially, geographically, and in manpower already in the position of being the main army of defence or attack, it followed that the' reserves "in the form of the colonies" should do nothing to weaken their, position. Now, supposing it was desired by the New Zealand Government, in the interests of the towns) to start a certain industry, and that the manufactured article could not be produced so cheaply locally as a similar article made in Britain could be landed here. The course now followed would be to place an import duty sufficiently ' large on the British article as to make it payable to produce it in the Dominion.

We will take it that this industry in Britain kept 5000 men employed 'manufacturing the New Zealand portion of their trade. The immediate result would be that the main army of the Empire would be deprived of 5000, potential fighters which were placed right at the danger point, and transferred though the means of immigration to the reserves, thus lessening the efficiency of the Empire's army of defence, for we must always remember that ihere are at least 80,000,000 of Germans in Europe which increase at the rate of 2,000,000" a year, and this great race is bound to rise in power again. Therefore, if we are wise, instead of bolstering ut> industries which di-aw potential fighters *B.way from where our main army is required, we should do the opposite by buying all articles from Britain which cannot unaided be produced here as cheaply, and thus encourage our main army to become greater and greater, with the result of increased security to ourselves as outlyinpr portions of the Empire. There would be a very sorry day in store for us if we as a nation sat down comfortably in our chairs believing all future danger to our national existence to have been (through our late victory) effectively averted. It is always sound policy to prepare for the worst and hope for the best, and therefore it is on the possibility of the former danger threatening us that our Imperial policy must be based.

At this present moment the British Imperial Chancellor is on the horns of a dilemma in preparing his taxation proposals. He wishes the Dominions to give preference to British manufacturers, and yet he dar© not give preference in return by placing an import tax on foreign foodstuffs owing to the outcry it would create in the country. Now, if our two leaders (who are at present in England) were able to see further than their own New Zealand horizon, they would point out to the Imperial Chancellor that it Was directly against the interests of the dominions to have a preferential tariff on imports of food produced by them. It is absolutely essential to place nothing in the way of landing food cheaply for the workers at our strategjp centre, for the cheaper they are able to live the greater chance have they of competing successfully against their rivals. It is to the interests of the dominions to give sufficient trade to the Home manufacturers to enable them to absorb the yearly increase of the population, and instead of encouraging emigration to the colonies do the direct opposite. I will give an illustration of what would happen to the Empire- if the dominions continued their present policy of protecting their own manufacturing interests through the customs. It means that for ■ every industry which is protected in this way so many thousand fighters are taken away from the main army and added ±o the reserves until in course of time tne reserves will constitute tho larger number, which, from an Empiro point of view, is bad strategy. At the present time the population 6f Britain i« 45,000,<j00, and that of tho

rest of the Empire (reckoning whites Only) about 15 millions, which is approximately the correct proportions of main army ana reserves in practise!. Now, in 50 years' time, if colonial protection of local taanur faotures and encouragement of British emigration continue a* at present, the Empire would be composed of something like the following:—Britain's population reduced to 40 millions, Canada's increased to 30 mij» iions. .Australasia's increased to 20 million*, South Africa's increased to 10 millions, and, as the short-sighted statesmen responsible; for tho above state of affairs would hare no more sense in other Empire interests, it is safe to say the navy would be Parcelled out similarly. Now, the present German population in Europe is 80 million [ annual increase of two million for 50 years would give them 180 millions ready to attack the British Empire in detail. It it not difficult to imagine the with our army and navy scattered over the four corners of tho earth. Therefore- every component part of the Brtish Empire can have but one Imperial that is, encouraging the retention of Britain's surplus, population at Home- by preferential trade:. with Britain without reciprocity if it meani increased cost of living to our Home workers, and, by dropping their own protective tariffs, force their surplus population in the towns to go on the land, and by increased production lessen the oost of Hiring to Britain's workers, which in turn will reflect to our benefit in the lowered cost of manufacturing our requirements. Having" given a good argument against Protection in the above, it becomes an easy matter to do away altogether with the Customs, for as preference within the Empire is bound to come as a support to Imperiul strategy, we would just simply shut out all foreign manufactured goods which competed againsf the British, and let in free those which dia not. ; , I had hoped that the new party in -Ne* Zealand politics might have had some radical changes in policy to trumpet* forth, buM their policy (as just published) has nothings new in it. The farmers must therefore itfwr realise that if any alteration in policy is to take place it must come from themselYef, and I should advise that all decisioni reached at the forthcoming provincial ami dominion conferences of the Farmets/ Union should place local interests as secondary to Empire interests when it is prejudfc oial to our future existence as an Imperii! race. Summing up the three letters already written, it 'will be seen I advocate the following for discussion and adoption when shaping a New Zealand Farmers' Union, policy:—

(a) Nationalisation of doctors forxtho country districts, with a uniform fee f<w town and country. (b) Free carriage of all foodstuffs to ana from the distributing- centres, thus equalising the cost of living all ov«

the country, (o) Abolition of present unfair method <K raising revenue, and substituting a single tax on the co-operative prinoipli* of so much pro rata on all income* from £1 upwards. (d) Support of true strategy for the Em>pire by preferential trade with Brita&ti and abolition of local protection, thus encouraging__ retention of- Britain** surplus population at the Empire"* strategio centre. (e) For the same purpose as above a dj* continuance of our present financiil

assistance to British emigrants. (f) The cost of the maintenance of tit* main arterial roads to be placed ore* the whole community. (g) In all future legislation the interest* of the farming or wealth-produoin* class to take precedence over that ot the town or trading class. (h) No legislation to be passed benefiting the towns which at the same tip© » prejudicial to the wealth-producer* from whom, they derive their means of existence. I had intended to illustrate the rimptaJ .. way the single tax on incomes could be collected, tut have decided to limit thf explanation las this letter Is already long} to statin? that my scheme provides a > simptfl means by which eyery man in self-interest becomes a cheek on the possibility of ha neighbour wishing to defraud the revenue.— I am, eto., -| V W. E. GOTTLTEJJj Manawahe Mutata, Bay of Plenty, M*r 20.