The Waipukurau Press. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. MONDAY, MAY 16, 1932. UNEMPLOYMENT POLICY

Waipukurau Press, Volume XXVIII, Issue 120, 16 May 1932, Page 4

The Waipukurau Press. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. MONDAY, MAY 16, 1932. UNEMPLOYMENT POLICY

From various quarters not usually found indulging in adverse criticism of the Government come expressions of dissatisfaction as to the unemployment relief measures in operation, and the course being pursued in the matter of raising the necessary revenue. Incidental to the advertising campaign recently in progress in the interests of the special settlement scheme initiated by the Rt. Hon. J. G. Coates in his role as Minister of Employment the “Stratford Post’’ has the following, caustic comment: “A huge advertisement has been inserted in certain papers somewhat reminiscent of the now famous “splashes” used in the 192 5 election, and according to Mr Coates’ own statement in the House at the cost of £l2OO. Mr Holland was right when he said the advertisement appeared, like a political, stunt for the Government, and to use £l2OO of money acquired from taxes for the relief of unemployed in this way is something that cannot be condemned too strongly. Mr Coates’ scheme for the relief of unemployment outlined in the advertisement and in his previous speeches is so futile that it is suffi-' cient to make the angels weep. Mr S. G. Smith launched the first unemployment scheme. It left much to be desired, we know, and it was not successful principally because the work on which unemployed were engaged was not sufficiently reproductive. Mr. Smith obtained the cooperation of the people without spending money in this way. He asked for and got the help of the major-, ity of newspapers, not to put forth propaganda, but to explain the aims' of the Government, and it cost him very little indeed to do it —if anything. If the matter in the present instance had been set out in a newsy way, as was done in the days of Mr. Smith, we feel sure that hardly a newspaper in the Dominion would have refused to give it publicity ini the ne.w^.columns. But apparently no thought was given to that phase.: The Minister had £l2OO of publid money, and the splash was made.' The omission of the Minister’s picture in the middle of the page was rather a pity. Had that been included the effort would have been worthy of the best traditions of 1925. It will be most comforting for the unemployed to realise how much benefit they would have received had this £l2OO been enpended in relief work. And let those people who provided 1/- in the £ on £24,000 wages to make up the £l2OO ponder upon the way in which the money which many of them can so ill afford is being used. The heading, “The Government resolutely tackles the Unemployment Problem,” should provoke hearty laughter when one reads what is set out underneath; The manifesto, if such it can be called, contains nothing new, nothing calculated to do other than make people lose faith in the Government;

nothing in fact but airy platitudes and political claptrap.” The foregoing criticism strikes somewhat personal partisan, and pessimistic notes, but show that a considerable section of Coalition opinion is not enamoured as to the present position. The “Post” does not usually indulge in unsympathetic comment concerning the Government’s proposals. The advertising propaganda was not, however in good taste. INEQUITABLE TAX RATE On the subject of discrimination as between income from wage' and salary sources, and that received otherwise, much dissatisfaction is being expressed. As we have already pointed out it is unjust that the retrospective payment basis is on a basis 300 per cent, higher than that applicable during the financial year just ended, viz J./-, instead of 3d. in the £. The position is thus illustrated by a correspondent to a Wairarapa newspaper:—.“Many business men have not been able to take out of their businesses more than, say. £2OO for the year, yet if the tax is retrospective then these small business men will be required to pay 200/-, or £lO, while the highly-paid employee, who is in receipt of, say, £lOOO a year, but is paid w’eekly or monthly, has got away every pay day throughout the year with 3d in the £l. If a business man paid his employee, say £4 10s a week during the last year the latter paid by way of tax, 3d in the £l,; l/3 a week, or £5/5/- for the year. But if the business man draws only £4/10/himself out of the business, and sends in his returns to the Income Tax Department he has to pay 234 shillings, or £ll/14/-. Am I right? If so, why the distinction? We have many small struggling business men in the country who can only arrive at thbir income £Lt the end of the year, and they have to pay 1/- in the £, while the person who has 'been drawing a large salary all the year has already paid only 3d. It is, in-the writer’s opinion, very unfair to any businessman.”