The Waipukurau Press. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. SATURDAY, MAY 14, 1932. DISARM DISCONTENT

Waipukurau Press, Volume XXVIII, Issue 119, 14 May 1932, Page 4

The Waipukurau Press. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. SATURDAY, MAY 14, 1932. DISARM DISCONTENT

While ever standing four-square on the score of law and order we also hold that all genuine grounds for complaint as concerning the rights of the unemployed should be removed. It is clear that procrastination is largely responsible for the discontent and strife so prevalent. As far as the most recent Wellington trouble is concerned it would appear that the crowd was provoked to anger by the curtailment of the privilege conceded, and in such circumstances passion rather than reason holds sway, with disastrous consequences to the inoffensive majority. The independent comments of the chairman of the Wellington Unemployment Committee (published on Thursday) were much to the point and the sooner remedial action is taken the better for all concerned. Then we have the criticism of a Palmerston North Magistrate: “It seems to me to be a farce bringing these men before the court when they have no money, for it is only making the position worse,” declared Mr. J. L. Stout, S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court when dealing with defaulters in the payment of instalments of the unemployment levy. Mr. Stout said the Department of Labour should use some discretion in taking action, for it seemed absurd to him for men who had no means to be charged. “The department should investigate each case and come before the court with the full particulars which were available to them. There were frequently cases which he would like to dismiss, but he could not, for it was his duty to set an example to the community. He was sure that there were many who were not in a position to pay the tax who were not aware that exemption could be granted to them if they made application in the proper direction.” Of course it does not do to encourage either lawlessness or evasion, but the State’s enforcements should be applied in a manner devoid of injustice. Those in employment and business also have a grievance, as to the incidence of the wage “cuts,” levies and taxes —in particu-

lar people whose slender means may be subject to the “income other than wages or salary” rate of 1/- in the £ (instead of 3d as had applied to wages and salaries), for their 1931-32 receipts. However, they must needs “grin and bear it” till the four years of this Parliament’s life has run —if they believe in following the right, although maybe “patience-trying” constitutional road, leading to the sometimes deceptive remedial medium, i.e. the ballot-box. Regular work on reasonable conditions of employment is a policy to which all people of moderate opinion can subscribe; and let it be promptly applied with the funds the people (mostly the masses) are providing. It is not surprising therefore to find the Mayor of Dunedin sounding a note of dissatisfaction as to the allocation of work.

THE WAGES TAX The shilling in the pound wage tax is, as is generally known, applicable to all income other than salary or wages received during the year ended on March 31st las, but the “Christchurch Star” points out that postal officials who act as the collecting agents are receiving numerous complaints. The ; , system under which the special emergency charge is collected differs from that applied in respect of the wages tax. In the

case of a person receiving wages or salary the tax is deducted at the time he is paid, but payments of the emergency charge must be made by the individual affected. The emergency charge which is now raised from threepence in the pound to one shilling is based on income other than salary or wages received during the year ended on March 31, and is payable in either one sum or four instalments spread over the year. For the purposes of the tax the Government assumes that this year’s income will be the same as that for last year, and any benefit in respect of reduced income will not be obtained until the succeeding year. Persons whose sole source of income is derived from rents and interest will be hit hardest by the increase in the tax. Many of them are now in receipt of lower incomes, but they must pay the tax on the basis of what they actually received last year. The effect of this is. that a person whose income last year was, say £2OO, derived from sources other than salary or wages, must now pay £lO tax, but the tax on a person who received the same amount in wages during the same period was £2 10s only. > The part that hurts most is the fact that the increase in the tax was not contemplated by the majority of those affected. 1