£10,000,000 UP

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19454, 13 October 1937, Page 5

£10,000,000 UP

TAXATION YIELD INCREASE IN TWO YEARS GOVERNMENT CRITICISED .MR. HAMILTON'S QUERY QUESTIONS IN REPLY (Parliamentary Reporter.) WELLINGTON- this day. With the taxation yield £10,000,000 more than its total of two years ago, an j increase of 40 per cent, the ' Leader of the. Opposition, the Hon. A.'Hamilton, was able to strongly urge on behalf of taxpayers that the time had come for easing the burden. The annual Land and Income Tax Bill was under discussion in the House of Representatives. Though it talkes" no change in actual .rates: of tax, the improved conditions mean a much greater return. far.! Hamilton showed that by including the unemployment tax, the total revenue from taxation in 1930 was £25,513.032. Then the Labour Government was responsible for administration, and the figure increased to £31,608,101, while the present Budget anticipates a revenue from ordinary taxes of £30,338,000 and from unemployment tax £5,180,000, or a total of £35,518,000, an increase in two years of practically £10,000,000. The taxpayer, he argued, was justified in looking for some remission instead of being asked to provide £10,000,000 more than in 1935-36. The Minister of Finance had promised to revise the incidence of taxation, and this was very necessary. "Ways of Escape" "But the Minister's idea," continued Mr. Hamilton, "is simply to stop the leaks, which is not helpful to the taxpayer who is looking for ways of escape from what is really a heavy burden." When the Opposition asked for reductions in taxes it was met With the reply, "Who put them on?" . But when those taxes were imposed there was a very different set of conditions from those of to-day, when the same taxes were bringing in an enormous return. They were put on in the hope that the time would come when they could be taken off. That time had come, but the taxpayer was now the most disappointed man in the community. There was a danger in keeping taxation too high in prosperous years, for he would ask the Minister of Finance how he would adjust the high expenditure if his revenue fell off? It was easy to spend, but to adjust expenditure to a smaller revenue was -not so easy, and by maintaining high taxation he warned the Government that it might be " undermining the country's financial structure if it did not watch out. . The Minister who got up to answer the questions from the Opposition Leader, countered with other queries, and this led to interesting cross talk. The Hon. P. Eraser, Minister of Education, declared that no Government could justify levying on the people taxes which could not be wisely expended. If the Opposition believed that expenditure was staggering, would they tell the Government where it was wrong? "Political Hypocrisy" Mr. Hamilton: I will tell you when we come to the estimates. Mr. Fraser: To what items does he object? Last year the Opposition had ample opportunity to oppose the estimates which included greater provision for social services, but I have no recollection of the Opposition opposing those items. The Minister enumerated all the increased votes for social welfare, and inquired whether his critics would vote to reduce pensions? Mr. Hamilton: We will show you what we are prepared to vote for. The Minister suggested that the Opposition was with the Government 100 per ceul on its improved provision f>r defence, and he expected the House to be unanimous over the educational proposals he intended to bring into operation. But all these things had tj be paid for, and it was political hypocrisy not to object to the objects but to object to paying for them- Wit could be shown where expenditure could be legitimately reduced, he would be glad to hear. "I would like more money to expand the dental clinics," added Mr. Fraser, "and- more for our education services." : '.The Hon. W. E. Parry: And I would like more money for pensions. Mr. Fraser continued his questions, inviting the other side to indicate What alternatives they could offer to the present taxation. "If the Revenue Drops" Mr. Hamilton: You have not answered my question yet. (Laughter.) Mr. Fraser; This attempt to answer my questions by putting another one may be all very,good—:•, Mr. Hamilton: That's what you are doing. (Laughter.? ■To the further. amusement. of the Opposition, the Minister repeated his question •as to what expenditure should be reduced. •Mr. W. J. Poison (Nat., Stratford); We will indicate it all right. The Minister: Why not do it this afternoon? It is a promissory note about what will be done on the estimates. He proceeded to enumerate legislative changes carried out by the Government for the benefit of deserving people when the Leader of the Opposition interrupted with a reminder ■ that his question was still not answered: "What would you do if the revenue drops?" The Minister: I am not sure that ' r am prepared to answer that in detail. But we would not slice off old age pensions as the previous Government did, nor reduce education facilities, curtail the dental clinics or re'duice wages, throwing thousands of people out of employment. < '* Mr. S. G. Holland (Nat., Chrlstchu?ch North): Will the Minister tell us what he would do? , '■ Mr. Fraser: I am not prepared to say what we would do, but I have * ! said.what we would not do. We ' Would certainly use the entire resources of the country to protect the •■ lives of the people from the impact of international catastrophe, find not use the legislative power to make that impact worse