The Sun 42 Wyndham Street. Auckland, N.2. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER. 7, 1927 TAXATION INSTEAD OF ECONOMY

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 143, 7 September 1927, Page 8

The Sun 42 Wyndham Street. Auckland, N.2. WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER. 7, 1927 TAXATION INSTEAD OF ECONOMY

THE Minister of Finance —an able barrister in other days—made the best ease possible in the House of Representatives last evening in defence of his legislative proposal to put the burden of taxation on an equitable basis. But he failed to obtain a favourable verdict. The mixed opposition assailed the most vital clauses in the Land and Income Tax Amendment Bill and (though agreeing on the voices to its formal second reading) declined to rush it through final stages. It was not to be expected that Mr. Stewart easily would win the House over to his side. The Ministerial proposals indubitably provide an adjustment of inequitable gradations of taxable income, but against that improvement, which admittedly is belated, the removal of inequities in certain eases establishes what will he felt as iniquities in other cases. Hence the widespread unpopularity of the proposed amendment to the existing taxation which, as usual, was rushed through Parliament without serious challenge from four-score of politicians whose combined knowledge of finance and the intricacies of graduated taxation is not yet encyclopaedic. Neither the purpose of the amending Bill nor the reason for its shrewd construction is obscure. The Treasurer needs the extra revenue it seeks to take from over-burdened taxpayers, and must get it from some source. This necessity appears to have been overlooked by those intimate friends and supporters of the Government who are now bruising friendship and screaming at the political brigandage of the Reform Administration. Of course, it is unfortunate that, in endeavouring to straighten out the graduation the Government should have piled new burdens on the hacks of those taxpayers who, by reason of their fixed salaries and inability to wrench any concessions out of trade and commerce which keep the cost of living out of all proportion to the purchasing power of money, must look upon the adjustment as a new terror. • There is not much consolation in the promise of Mr. Stewart to revise the customs tariff. Such revision may in theory promise materially to affect the position, but, in practice, any benefit that ought to come to taxpayers through the cost of living, is almost certain to be snatched up by alert persons before it reaches the purchaser. In any case why palaver with the idea that what is taken by one hand will be given back by the other? The suggestion is merely a sham and a delusion. The Government has made it clear that there is no prospect at all of any reduction in taxation. It has shown also that wherever an increase seems practicable it will not hesitate to collect the money. Is there another way out of the difficulty? There is—the old way of economy and thrift, hut who is going voluntarily to take it? THE WELFARE OF THE CHILD THERE may be a good deal to learn from the most recent English legislation on child welfare, which is said t'o he in many respects entirely admirable, and especially hopeful in its departures aiming at the salvation of young people threatened by degenerate environment and the redemption of those already badly influenced; but the New Zealand amending legislation of two sessions ago marked a very notable advance in child welfare in this country, particularly in regard to the treatment of delinquents. The sponsor of the amending Bill was the then Minister of Education, Sir James Parr, who was extremely interested in this subject. Sir James is now in London as High Commissioner, and no doubt lie would he prepared, despite his many duties, to inquire into the most recent English experiences in child welfare work and to furnish a report to the Government of 1 his country. Meanwhile the contention of the Auckland Social Welfare Council, as expressed at its meeting last night, deserves the attention of the Government. In the opinion of the council, it would he in the best interests of child welfare if the Child Welfare Branch of the Education Department became a distinct department under an officer directly responsible to the Minister in Charge. The attitude of the council is sound, and reasonable. It is not to be expected that, with such urgent matters as the primary and secondary education of children normally circumstanced continually pressing on the department, the claims of the small minority, less fortunately situated, will get the attention they deserve when they have to dribble through the various forms of departmental procedure before they can proceed, via the departmental head, under the notice of the Minister, Over 10,000 children are being maintained apart from their parents under the supervision of the State, and this is only one section of the activities of child welfare. The work is so immediately important, and fraught with such consequences, that it demands the full attention of a separate department, and the Government should give Ihe proposal its immediate and attentive consideration. ASHAMED OF OUR OWN IT is astonishing that, despite “Made in New Zealand” exhibitions and other evidences of the ability of New Zealand manufacturers to produce goods equal to the world’s best, we should be forcibly reminded that there are still New Zealanders who believe there is nothing good comes out of New Zealand. The report of the Department of Commerce and Industries emphasises that there are numbers of such persons, however — so many, in fact, that in many instances manufacturers are “forced” to brand their goods, in a manner that will lead the public to believe they are not New Zealand-made. This public prejudice is most regrettably reinforced by retailers who demand price concessions from manufacturers on the ground that they must have a higher selling margin on local than on imported goods. Retailers guilty of this form of extortion are considerably more to blame than the public; for the biggest factor in converting the public to the other viewpoint would be the retailers, if they were willing to display New Zealand goods and push their sale. The policy of the manufacturers to overcome the existing prejudice should he “publicity—and still more publicity,”