THE FINANCE BILL.

Southland Times, Issue 17756, 6 September 1917, Page 4

THE FINANCE BILL.

Some of the amendments proposed in the Finance Bill are a distinct improvement upon the clauses as at first submitted. As regards compulsory contributions to the War Loan it was provided in Clause 37 that appeal from the demand of the Commissioner of Taxes should lie to the Commissioner of Taxes himself, who was empowered at his discretion to invite the assistance of the Secretary' of the Treasury and the Government Insurance Commissioner. Even when these officers acted with him, however, the determination of every appeal lay with the Commissioner himself. This was hardly fair cither to the appealing taxpayer or to the Commissioner of Taxes. It threw upon an officer of the State a far heavier responsibility than he could reasonably be expected to earn', and the Minister now proposes to set up the Board consisting of the Controller and Auditor-General (chairman*, the Commissioner of Taxes, (he Secretary’ to the Treasury and the Government Insurance Commissioner. The setting up of this Board will relieve the mind of the Commissioner of Taxes and it will also give the taxpayers who may be affected by the clauses a feeling of greater security. In this connection it will have been noted that the Minister of Finance does not intend to apply these clauses generally. Those who were somewhat alarmed by the idea that all whose taxable income exceeded £7OO would be compelled to subscribe to the War Loans in accordance with a hard and fast scale have been reassured by the Minister’s statement that the clauses are intended to apply only to those who have shirked their duty. As the Minister has explained, glaring cases have come under his notice. He has quoted one or two of them, and he wanted power to deal with them. Hence these clauses. Since it was obvious from the outset that they tvere not mandatory or general but permissive we have been at a loss to account for the apprehension manifested in some quarters, but Sir Joseph Ward’s explanation should dispose of any idea that a confiscatory “raid” is intended. At the present time a social exemption is made to payers of income tax in respect to dependent children. The exemption docs not apply at all to incomes of more than £425 and is limited to £25,, for each of five children. In such a case the limitation of income and of the number of children is an absurdity. The man with an income of £450 a year and six children is worse off than a man with £425 a year and three children, and both of them are worse off than a bachelor with £3OO a year. It was anomalous that of two men earning £425 a year, one with eight children and the other with live, there should be no difference in exemption from income tax. It has now been decided to remove the limitation on the number of children, but the limitation of income still stands. We can sec no reason why the exemption for child ren should not be granted irrespective of income, and this is now the more necessary since the exemption of £3OO is no longer general. The exemption of £3OO is granted on incomes up to £6OO only, and after that the exemption is reduced by £1 for every £1 of additional income. Thus when the income reaches £7OO the exemption is only £2OO, at £BOO the exemption is only £IOO, and at £9OO the exemption disappears alto-

getber. In these circumstances the-exemp-tion for dependent children should be granted irrespective of income. Furthermore, there should be a distinction with regard to exemption as between the married man and the bachelor. The bachelor who has £4OO a year should not bo allowed to deduct £3OO. Part of the married man’s exemption is really due to his wife, and the bachelor having no wife, is not entitled to the same exemption. Discrimination against the bachelor is not only justified by the condition of celibacy, but also by his ability to pay. As compared with the family man he is well off in these times of high and increasing prices, and if he cannot fight he can at least pay. The amendments certainly contain improvements, but are, we think, capable of being made still better.