Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, MONDAY, APRIL 18, 1927. THE BURDEN OF TAXATION

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16317, 18 April 1927, Page 6

Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, MONDAY, APRIL 18, 1927. THE BURDEN OF TAXATION

“Not a gleam ol‘ hope for tko .taxpayer. Everything going on and nothing coming off." Such was the brief cabled prognostication concerning' the British Chancellor’s Budget. And it has boon partly verified, though undoubtedly Mr. Churchill, with remarkable skill, put the best phase on a very uncomfortable situation. Hitherto it has been the aim of Chancellors to present a balanced Budget, and because he was not able to do so on the

present occasion cries have arisen from various quarters iliat “Churchill must go.” It would not be Mr. Winston Churchill if he did not meet difficulties and criticism with a cheerful countenance, and though he has had unfortunate figures to present and unpalatable remedies to propose he has sugar-coated the pill from his unfailing store of optimism. The Chancellor took occasion only a few months ago to remind a great audience at Manchester of the extraordinary economic strength of Britain and of its national ami social life. The facts i hat, Britain had remained paralysed for seven months without a collapse of trade and finance; ,that British credit had remained throughout the year absolutely unimpaired; that war-debt payments had boon made without debilitation of exchange; that despite large export the gold reserve remained unimpaired and our foreign securities lmd actually increased, all went to prove the stability of Britain, and Mr. Churchill’s forecast of reviving trade and diminishing unemployment, on the continuance of which he is now banking, has since been fully sustained. It is not likely, therefore, that the nation will lose heart because the head of the Treasury has found it necessary to make a further slight turn of the screw of taxation. Such a procedure, of course, is not popular. There were bound to be calls for' retrenchment and even for the resignation of the Chancellor, or of the Covernment. And yet, as one paper remarks, when the matter comes for discussion in Parliament, the debate is hardly likely to be fruitful of results. The reason is not obscure. It is not that members of Parliament are unaware of or heedless of the magnitude and the depressing influence of these' not sufficiently candid in throwing the blame on the right shoulders. The peoplo most to blame in tho long run art themselves. They will not exercise tho #power of the' purso which is theirs by a long tradition of centuries. When it comes to taking responsibility for refusing credits to Governments they abdicate. The House of Commons—and this remark, we venture to state, applies with equal force to the New Zealand House of Representatives —no longer exercises a jealous control over expenditure. l{ is a spending, not a saving body. It tnkos no more than theoretical interest in economy. Whenever a Government proposes a measure for cutting down expenditure, reducing redundant staffs, preventing the growth of automatic increases, rationing the spending departments, and cutting tho coat according to the cloth, tho Minister in charge has to fight with his back to the wall against, the representatives of tho threatened interests, especially when they touch large numbers of voters. All Parliaments, whatever their complexion, have been almost equally to blame in recent years, and not until politicians impute the blame to the right quarters will there be much hope of radical change. Poor law relief in Britain hns grown from A't.ooo.ooo in 1918 to £19,000,000 in 1925-0, and yet this fact has not stimulated ratepayers to interest themselves in the election of BonrHs of Guardians, the only section which is bent on Capturing and controlling these boqrds being the Socialist party, whose object is not to diminish the poor rate but to add to it. One criticism that is being levelled against the Chancellor is his use for general purposes of the moneys collected from motor taxation. This “raid on the Road Fund” was recently referred to by Mr. Lloyd George who said that tho Chancellor had “carried invaywith felonious intent.' £7,000,000 of money which belonged to the Road

Fund” and which should have been expended on new roads and maintenance without the diversion of a penny. In which ease, of course, there must have been a corresponding increase. of taxation whilst the local authorities poured these millions on the roads. Surely in a time like the present tho Chancellor should have discretion to use whatever funds are available to meet the national emergency. It lias been pointed out by a Conservative member that the four chief expenses of local government which have grown like Jonah’s gourd are those incurred in connection with poor law, roads, education, and public health. In these fields Liberals and Socialists alike arc ready to turn on the taps to full capacity and leave them running. Tho paralysing burdens of rates and taxes are duo first and foremost to the fact that the cost, of “social services” has risen from £9,000,000 in 1891 to £170,000,000 in 1925, and that taxation has increased four-fold since 1913. The remedy, of course, is economical and non-wasteful administration, but this can only be accomplished if the public mind it set upon it and if it gives a distinct mandate to the Government to effect economy in every possible direction, and guarantees to back the Government up when tho process is being effected. New Zealand, wo fear, will this year have to force a Budget much less satisfactory than any of its immediate predecessors, and whilst we all agree that no further increase in taxation can be tolerated, the people must realise that if the fiscal situation is to bo adequately met there must, be a curtailment of public expenditure. and they must be prepared to back the Government up when tho brakes are applied.