Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price 1d. FRIDAY, MAY 27, 1887. Increased Taxation.

Wairarapa Standard, Volume XX, Issue 2073, 27 May 1887, Page 2

Wairarapa Standard Published Tri-weekly, Price Id. FRIDAY, MAY 27, 1887. Increased Taxation.

At the present moment of writing the struggle over the tariff proposals of the Government has began in Parliament. What the result will be it is difficult to foresee ; but it is practically certain that neither Parliament nor the country will accept the tariff and the enormous additional taxation which it would impose, in its present shape. The tariff is called a “ pro tective ” one, but that is not its only objectionable feature. The Protective proposals include £11,600 of increased taxation to protect the boot trade, and £14,000 for the benefit of the iron trade. We are strongly of opinion that no further Protection is needed for the boot trade, which had become largely developed under the previously existing Customs Duties imposed on imported boots and shoes ; while the iron trade wight very well have been left without any additional purely artificial aid. But the special feature of the tariff'is, that it imposes heavy additional duties upon many articles of universal use by the mass of the people, and that the cost of living will consequently be largely increased Exclusive of the £20,600 of taxation already mentioned, which is imposed ostensibly to protect the boot manufacturers and the iron workers, there is a sum of £161,001) to he raised by additionally taxing almost every

amcie in scmT.u use. mere am increased unties on rice, corn time, mm/emi, candles, preserved fish, sauces, pickles, and a iot of other mi'ige. Calicoes, e.i.ouial cotton goods, union tddriings, and cotton dress prints, all , rticles chiefly used by the poor and families ol limited means. It is not the luxuries of the rich, but the necessaries of the poor which are made the special subjects of additional taxation. In truth, if this tariff should become law, then the hardearned income of the country settler, and the laboring man, would not go nearly so far as it does at present in purchasing power. The working classes in the cities would feel the pressure of the increased taxation with equal severity. When Sir Julius Vogel made his first speech to a Middle Island audience immediately after his return to the colony, he declared that he saw his way to adjusting the public finances, removing the existing depression, and restoring prosperity, without addiny to the wciyht of taxation. How havethose promises been fulfilled ? There has been fresh borrowing, the public liabilities have largely increased, and eighteen months ago, a Budget was brought forward proposing heavy additional taxation. These proposals were decisively rejected and the obnoxious Budget was torn to pieces in Parliament. Now the same proposals in an intamufiad fnrm apa Acra/in

brought forward, and it is to be hoped that Parliament will once more decisively reject them. We declare emphatically that should the present proposed land become law, the coat of living to country settlers, and the working cla-scs will become so largely increased t'nit the colony will no longer hj worth living in. Already iNmv Zealand is the most heavily taxed of all the British colonics, except Queensland, and any additions lo the existing burden would be im-dcrable. It may. however, bo asked, " fan this additional taxation be avoided ?” I'hore is no doubt that tins result could, in a great measure, be achieved, if the representatives of the people, were to set about the work in an honest, unselfish and determined way. Tne watchword should be “ prudent expenditure afld rigid retrenchment.” Why should some£lo,ooo a vear be spent on the Governor and his establishment ? Why should the number of members of the House of Keprpsentatives, each drawing £2iU a

year, hugely increased, when the business of the country coukl be equally well done by a House ol 71 or even of .'0 members. Why should the honorarium of these members be mere than £SO for each session Y Why should the members of the Upper House continue to draw £2lo a year out of the pockets of the impoverished taxpayers, when the celouv is almost sinking under its burdens md hundreds of unemployed able bodied men cannot earn food for themselves and their families ? Why should £200,000 a year be spent in maintaining a useless defence depart merit Y Why should the salaries of 'dinisters, averaging £1250 to £I7OO n year each, with an enormous additional outlay borne by the taxpayers for ministerial residences and travelling allowances, not be cut down by moie than one half ? We might go on pointing out many other ways in which retrenchment is alike practicable and imperatively called for in the

; nmc-Os of the people, but these will suffice for the present. Uy the adoption of a system of economy, retrench meat and prudence in expenditure, the necessity would be altogether removed

of trying to force upon the people | such a crushieg load of additional j taxation as that which it is proposed | to impose in the monstrous and iniquitious Customs Tariff now being fought over within the walls of Parliament.