BRITISH PARLIAMENT

Southland Times, Issue 18968, 15 June 1923, Page 5

BRITISH PARLIAMENT

INCOME TAX. PROPOSED REDUCTION DEFEATED (By Telegraph—Press Assn.—Copyright). (Australian and N.Z. Cable Association.) LONDON, June 13. In the House of Commons, Mr Adkins in committee on the Finance Bill, moved to reduce the income tax from 4s 6d to 4s in the interests of the revival of trade. He contended that the reduction was justified by the surplus of £100,000,000 of 1922-23. Mr Snowden said that Labour did not oppose a reduction of taxation if it could be effected without impairing the efficiency of national services, or postponing social reform. Mr Snowden said he opposed the amendment on the ground that it would chiefly benefit the well to do, who would spend it on luxuries which would not stimulate trade. Sir William Joynson-Hicks replying said that nobody suggested how to make up the deficiency the amendment would create. The Estimates had been closely framed. There was no human possibility of last year's surplus being repeated. Britain’s financial policy had been justified by the events. He believed by the end of the year she would have regained her position as the financial centre of the world. Mr Chamberlain said the House should not lightly undo the work of the Income Tax Commission. If it departed from the way Mr Baldwin’s Budget had marked out, it would be a great blow to British credit. The amendment was defeated without a division. Mr Lees Smith contended that the Government’s Sinking Fund plan was wholly inadequate, a capital levy was the only practical proposal, for dealing with the national debt. Ministerial cries of “confiscation! robbery 1” Mr Johnston urged that interest on. Government securities should be reduced as workers only received 2 J per cent, from the Post Office Savings Bank. Mr Baldwin, defending the Budget, said that he had tried to maintain the country’s credit in most difficult times. DUTIES ON LUXURIES. LONDON, June 13. Mr Shinwell in the House of Commons in Committee on the Finance Bill moved to abolish import duties imposed in 1915 on luxuries, including motor cars, clocks, watches, cinematograph films, and musical instruments. Sir William Joynson-Hicks replied that the duties yielded £2,500,000 yearly. No complaints had been received from either traders or consumers. The Government saw no reason to alter the duties. The amendment was defeated by 238 to 164.