BUDGET DISAPPOINTING TO “REAL” WORKERS

Waikato Independent, Volume XLIV, Issue 6093, 25 August 1947, Page 4

BUDGET DISAPPOINTING TO “REAL” WORKERS

THE EDITOR’S COMMENT.

We do not intend to go so far as the Leader of the Opposition with his comment at the conclusion of the reading of the Budget last week that it was “dull, dreary and disappointing,” but we do agree with his view as expressed in the last word—“disappointing.” Ths twelfth Budget delivered by Mr Nash must be particularly disappointing to the “real” workers of this country and we would describe “real” workers as those in the professions, trades, retail businesses, the services and last, but by no means the least, the primary producers. There is some rather hazy talk about incentive payments for production results; but there is little, if anything in the shape of relief from the heavy taxation for those people who are the “real” workers of the country. It is truly disappointing that with the war over now for two

years, that the total of taxation for the current year—at almost £64 per head of the population is only about £3 a head less than 1946 and is 3/7 [more than for the year just past. It must be said, of course, that the £64 is a Budget estimate; but on the face of the proposals in it we j cannot expect the year to treat us much more lightly than the estimate. Although it must be allowed we are still getting over the war repercussions the £64 is a staggering figure for every man, woman and child in this country to have to pay, when we remember that in 1939 the amount per head was about three times less. It is still more disappointing when we remember, too that last year’s revenue exceeded expenditure by an amount roughly equivalent to the yield of the remaining surcharge on income tax, and yet this special wartime loading reduced to 15 per cent, is still to remain. Someone was surely expressing a truism when he said that once the tax goes on it is a long time, if ever, that it comes off. We do not suggest for one moment that the elderly people in the'fixed income group ai’e not entitled to some consideration for they have felt the rise in costs most of all; neither do Iwe oppose certain increased benefits for the crippled and the sick; but we do think there is a limit to certain classes of pensions and social security benefits. We do give credit to Mr Nash in his endeavour to help those who are not beneficiaries of the State [through an easing of taxation on small unearned incomes; but we cannot help thinking that the continu- [ ance of the pressure of taxation will, in a great many instances, have a detrimental reflection upon the production and certain services 1 of jthe country. There is the need at the present time for some measure of encouragement to the “real” workers of the country. We see that the | current Budget is going to enthuse J many people to further develop their | industries and businesses; we cannot' see that there is much of an incentive i for people to work extra hours when most of their overtime will go in taxation. We join with an opinion expressed on Friday last that the latest Budget is but a continuation of the evil of encouraging still greater indolence. We can only hope that the one rather general statement of “incentive payments” means more than the interpretation we have now placed upon it.