PARLIAMENT IN SESSION

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 71, Issue 6136, 14 September 1945, Page 5

PARLIAMENT IN SESSION

SPEECH BY MR W. S. GOOSMAN “The Naional Party believes in individual capitalism, and in leaving the money with the people so that the people can decide into what industry that money shall be put. That is why we of the National Party advocate a reduction in taxation. We say that the money should be left with the’ people, and that the people should decide the industries into which the money shall be placed. By that means we can promote industry and provide more employment,” declared Mr W. S. Goosman (National, Waikato), speaking on the second reading of the Land and Income Tax (Annual) Bill in the House of Representatives. There was State capitalism, for which the Labour Party stood, and there was individual capitalism for which the National Party stood, he* said. Under State capitalism, the State taxed the people and took all the money it could from them, including the capital necessary to put into industry to provide work for the people. If the Government took the capital away from the people, the people in turn could not put that money into business. They could not promote new industries and new businesses. That was what the present Government was pleased to call State capitalism, where the State took the j money and decided what industries should be allowed to be developed. 'Mr Goosman said that the National Party was advocating, and rightly so, a reduction in taxation so that t»he people, who ran industry could have some capital to plough back into industry. The Government was the ! taxation farmer, because it farmed the people for taxation, and if it impoverished that farm, then the returns would go down. The people had done a great job during the war, and production had gone up, but those who should know said that unless there was some taxation relief there would would be a decline in production. A reduction in taxation would bring about an expansion of industry, and would thus provide more jobs and give the people who needed them more opportunities. Private enterprise had done that job and had provided the money to fight the war. It had provided the money to enable the Government to implement its social security legislation, and if private enterprise was not overloaded, it would continue to. do the job. Private enterprise required a tax structure that encouraged incentive and thrift. All that the Government had distributed had come out of industry through the efforts of private enterprise. It was quite right that the Sthte should’provide for the needy, but what was wanted was more carriers, and the carriers were the taxpayers. The people who worked and saved not only provided for themselves but also provided the capital for industry. The people who provided the wherewithal were the taxpayers; so should it not he recognised that the man who work- ! ed hard and saved his money promoted industry and provided jobs for the people who needed them. Should not a person of that description be rewarded for his efforts? The Labour Party had spoken about “useful” people, but before the people whom they termed useful people—the wage earners—could have jobs, somebody had to find capital. The first useful people were those who saved and provided the money for industry in order to make jobs available for the workers. If they did not do that, there would be no jobs. Mr Goosman said he had advocated the remission of the national security tax which last year amounted to £20,500,000. All the people who paid l national security tax did not make returns to the Income Tax Department. The Minister of Finance had ' said that there was no more tax to be got from those on the top, and that the Government could only get it from those at the bottom. Taking the approximate figures regarding that £20,500,000 national security tax, he estimated that the people who were receiving incomes of over £s*oo a year were paying, in the aggregate, £3,000,000 in tax. The companies were paying £2,250,000 in national security tax, but it was known that the national income had gone up a certain amount since then. Mr Goosman said he estimated that the people who received incomes of over £5OO a year, plus the companies, were paying about £6,000,000 to £6,500,000 of that £20,500,0*00. If the Government would rebate that tax, it would be the people under £5OO a year—and there were thousands of them—who would get of it. It was no use arguing that the people on top would get it; it would be the people at the bottom, because the Minister of Finance had said that there were no more at the top who coujd be taxed, and that he had had to go to the bottom to get the money. It was a war tax, and if it was remitted there would be no need to increase wages because their remission would bring down the cost of living, and the people would have more money. That would, in turn, bring about stabilisation. Mr Goosman quoted statements .from prominent members on the Treasury benches in which they opposed ’the imposition of the sales tax, and pointed out that the present Government had increased the sales tax from £1,500,000 to £13.000,000. Such quotations demonstrated the insincerity of the Labour Government, and showed that they had been, were, and would always be opportunists. The Government had used the war for almost everything it had done, and now that there was no war was still endeavouring to use it to extract money fg’om the people which it was not justified in extracting. Taxation was th e principal cause of the rise in the costs of goods. Mr Goosman stressed the importance of keening costs ‘down in the primary industries, and warned that if those costs were not kept within bounds, and if the country were overloaded with taxation, it would be strangled.