“SILK STOCKING BUDGET.”

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17528, 4 May 1925, Page 11

“SILK STOCKING BUDGET.”

DUTY CAUSES OUTCRY, j by Telegraph—Press Association —Copyright Australian and N.Z. Cable Association. LONDON, May 2. An outcry has developed over the whole country against Mr "Winston Churchill’s proposed silk duty, which has resulted in the Budget being nicknamed “ the Silk Stocking Budget.” In consequence of the outcry the j Treasury yesterday issued a statement i to the effect that the criticisms will ! be considered and the export trade will be consulted. It is now declared that it was never intended that because an article contained a little silk it was to be taxed to the extent of one-third of its value. There is an immense range of goods in which a small proportion of silk is employed, and it is admitted that the effect of imposing a- tax of one-third on the full value of such articles would make the duty highly protective. It is understood that Mr Churchill has been in consultation with the Customs authorities, the result of which will be a system of charging calculated to carry out Mr Churchill’s real intensions. The most pointed criticism of tne silk duty came in the House of Commons from Miss Wilkinson, who declared that artificial silk had taken the place among the working women of wool, which they could not afford to buy. It was largely used for knitted jumpers, which the women made themselves, and one pound at 3s was sufficient for a jumper. She proceeded to argue that a tax of 3s a pound meant 100 per cent increase, but a tax of 4s a pound on the heavier silks, used by rich women, meant only 66 2-3 per cent. Concerning stockings, Miss Wilkinson said the sixpence tax might be a matter of indifference to women who bought stockings at two guineas a pair, but it meant a 33 1-3 per cent increase to women who bought artificial silk stockings at Is 6£d a pair. Lord Oxford, speaking at Glasgow yesterday, declared:—“The silk tax is a tax upon the raw material of a great industry.’ ’ Sir Alfred Mend, speaking at Cardiff, asked:—“Why destroy one of the few prosperous industries which the country has? It is a mystery who advised Air Churchill to take such a stupid step. I am certain Mr Churchill will he obliged to abandon such a proposal.” The “ Morning Post.” in an editorial discussing the Budget’s provi-

sion for preference, says:—“When this system is once working it will make practicable that comprehensive migration within the Empire for which we have waited so long. Although the Budget makes no provision for such migration, its every line shows the necessity for it, for the new insurance scheme means an added charge on industry already burdened by over a million unem ployed.’ 5 The paper incidentally suggests an immediate modification of the Portuguese treaty to enable Australia and South Africa to label their wines as port. EXPLANATION BY CHANCELLOR. Reuter’s Telerrams LONDON. May 1. Mr Churchill, addressing the Primrose League at the Albert Hall, said his Budget consisted of a series of carefully adjusted balances. The tax on silk would produce exactly £4,000,000 this year and £7.000.000 next year, which would precisely meet the cost of the relief given on earned incomes to the smaller taxpayers. He was confident that the silk tax would not diminish employment, and would be paid b\- an enormous number of people in inconceivably small instalments. The women, if convinced that it was for the country’s good, would not hesitate to assume the burden of the tax. Another balance in the Budget was that the M’Kenna duties would fully defray the cost of Imperial preference. Referring to the previous night’s scene in the House of ■ ' ...tons, Mr Churchill vigorously as-. d his Labour critics. Mr Snowden had said it was a rich man’s Budget. Let him and his Socialist friends say that at New Year to the 200,000 widows who would then be drawing the pensions, and also to the six millions who were ass\ired of pensions; or say to the old age pensioners. “ Comrades, we meant to give you these on a non-contributorv basis, but we had to go and help our Russian friends first.” CLEAR DUTY TO SUPPORT CHANCELLOR LONDON, May 2. Mr Churchill’s Budget has been the subject of an increasing volume of criticism during the week-end. The chief points of attack are the silk duty and the added burdens to industry in consequence of the extensions of the insurance scheme. “ Reynolds’s News ” goes so far as to say that the silk duty will oe withdrawn and the insurance proposals will bo modified, postponed or withdrawn entirely. The effect of such a withdrawal would be to cut the heart out of the Budget entirely. There is no doubt, however, that the Budget proposals are undergoing review at the Treasury, and modifications of the original proposals are not unlikely. Mr J. L. Garvin, discussing the Budget in the “ Observer,” says:— “ Britain has been kept down by unexampled taxation. No mortal man could put this situation right by one first Budget. The work can only be done by a connected series of Budgets. The nation never had a clearer or graver duty than to strengthen the hands of the CTar.ccllo:-.'’