PROTECTIVE TARIFFS

Waipa Post, Volume 38, Issue 2285, 26 March 1929, Page 7

PROTECTIVE TARIFFS

EFFECT ON LIVING COSTS. The high cost of living was attributed by a conference of Waikatb branches of the Farmers’ Union on Friday to bq due in a large measure to the present system of tariffs on the necessities of life. The following remit from the Cambridge branch was discussed at length: “Recognising the imperative need for reducing costs of production and the close bearing the present high protective customs taxation have on such casts, this conference calls upon the Government to immediately reduce gradually such taxation upon the necessities of life and production as imported from Great Britain.” Mr H. Barter said the present position with regard to tariffs was uneconomic and had largerly come about as a result of farmers not having proper representation in Parliament. He pointed out the fallacy of the present system of protection. High tariffs in most cases were not logical, and if the principle was carried to its logical conclusion it would defeat its own ends. He agreed that a tax on articles not in common use might be desirable, but on the necessities of life it was folly to place a tariff. It had been stated by a noted English economist that the world had gene protection mad and that a world economic crisis was pending. If instead of bolstering up weak industries by the imposition of a tariff, tfye Government would assist those industries by scientific research some good might be done. The system of tariffs certainly needed drastic revision. CAUSE OF STAGNATION. Mr W. Bloyd (Matangi) considered the present stagnation condition in regard to land settlement was due to the high costs which prevented, and would continue to prevent, the development of new country. Mr Henderson (Hamilton) advocated imperial preference, and considered that while moderate tariff should be imposed on certain articles there should be no duty on foodstuffs. Mr Feisst agreed with Mr Barter that to carry the principle of taxation to its logical conclusion it would kill customs revenue altogether, as it would exclude entirely the articles which produced the revenue. If there was a reduction !of the tariffs placed bn certain articles it would force the fanufacturers in this country to tackle the real problem of high costs of manufacture and to adopt improved and more scientific methods in industry. The more secondary industries there were in this country manufacturing ion a payable basis without protection the better. SYSTEM OF SUBSIDIES. The question of the advantages of subsidies as compared with protective tariffs was also discussed. Mr Hodgson (Te Awamutu) said the system of subsidies as against that of protection provided a safe duplication of our retail trades and services and secondary industries at the expense of mass production. Mr G. Magner maintained that the principle that the user of an article should pay was wrong. The principle of income tax should be based on what a man possessed. A family man was taxed through the customs increasingly as his family increased, which was wrong, while the man who could best afford to pay escaped the burden of taxation. The following remits were also carried: This conference is opposed to duties or restrictions on the importation of the necessities of life and production, and considers any assistance necessary to local industries should be in the form of subsidies.” “This conference strongly protests against the policy of reducing income taxation while the customs duties remain high.” “That the principle of taxing the divisible surplus of companies be abolished.”

The chairman, Mr W. Lee Martin, M.P., predicted that something definite would be done by the present Government in the direction of abolishing the principle of taxing the divisible surplus of companies.