TANGLED FINANCE

Star (Christchurch), Volume XLIV, Issue 193, 15 August 1931, Page 17

TANGLED FINANCE

Reform Critic Gets Figures Badly Mixed.

CRITICISM FALLS FLAT. (Special to the “ Star.”) WELLINGTON, August 15. In the course of his contribution to the Budget debate in the House of Representatives the other day Mr A. Harris, the member for Waitemata, who figures among the financial authorities of the Reform Party, juggled so adroitly with the figures of the Financial Statement that he made it appear that during its twenty-seven months of office the United Party had increased the taxation of the country by £7,898,000. His assertion was taken to task by the “Evening Post,” a strictly nonparty publication, and Mr Harris then attempted to extricate himself by rearranging his figures. “What I ’ did say,” he now claims, “was that, as compared with the last complete year of the Reform administration, taxation had been increased, or would be increased, if the Budget proposals of the United Government were adopted, by an aggregate of £7,598,000. The aggregate United Party increases in the years referred to are therefore: 1929-30, £2,325.900: 1930-31, £1,733,000; 1931-32, including Budget proposals, £3,840,000, a total of £7,898.000.” “Makes it Worse.” “Mr Harris’s explanation makes his position worse,” the “Post” retorts. “He draws his comparison with 1928 as the last complete Reform year, but it should be made with 1929, as in that year all taxation was collected under Acts passed while Refoim was in office —thus making a difference of £700,000. Then he adds the increases all together, though on his own showing the £18,878,000 of 1930-31 (which includes unemployment tax) v/as less than the £19,470.000 collected in 1929-30.” “Finally,” the “Post” observes, “he takes the estimated yield of new taxes for 1931-32 and counts them all as increases—thus having a total of £3,840,COO—whereas the actual increase on 1930-31, including unemploj'ment tax and the Post Office surplus (which is really inadmissible), is £1,612,000. His calculation is so widely inaccurate that he would have been better advised not to make the position worse by explaining how he made it.”