NEVER MIND AMERICA

Waikato Times, Volume 96, Issue 15100, 22 November 1922, Page 4

NEVER MIND AMERICA

WHAT ABOUT US? “Never mind about America,” says The Man on the Land, “what interests me is—How is Prohibition going to affect the farmer?!’ Very well, let’s have a look at this question—let us bring “cold reason” to bear upon it.

First: Prohibition means the sacrifice of Two-und-a-half millions per annum of revenue. That’s generally admitted. Other expenses there are accompanying it —enforcement costs, unemployment relief, and so forth, but \ve”U leave those out.

< The Problem:

This 22 millions is part of the National Income for necessary governmental expenditure. If it is not produced by the licensed trade, it must he forthcoming from some other source. No getting away from that! Where will the'Government get it? The Man on the Land says, “Not from me!” The Civil Servant says, “Not from me!” The Business Man says, “Not from me 1” The Worker says, ‘‘Not on your life!" Mr Massey says, “No country can possibly carry the load of Taxation that New Zealand is now carrying.”— (Levin, Oct. 2nd, 1922). The Parliamentary Taxation Committee says, “Land tax is very sei'iouslv affecting Production and Development.” So there you are! Hopeful sort of outlook, isn’t it?

The Beautiful Vision:

But what does the Prohibitionist say? Of course what he means is that anybody but himself can pay it but this is what he says: “If prohibition is carried, people will have more to spend on boots, clothing, drapery, lollies and food. Taxation on these would produce the revenue.”

And very nice it sounds. Simple as ABC. Sure to satisfy everybody, except, perhaps, the Six Thousand folks who would lose their jobs, and their Eighteen Thousand dependents. But never mind them.

Let us for a moment accept the Prohibitionist’s programme and see how it would work out. These people state that New Zealand spends £7,500,000 per annum on liquor. Of course that estimate is more than th e correct figure, but we will accept that also for the time being.

A Few Simple Figures:

Very well: we have an expenditure of Seven-and-a-Half) Millions, yielding a revenue of two and a-haif millions. Exactly one-third goes to the Government. Out of the other Five Millions only about. One-and-a-Half Millions goes out of New Zealand. Thus we have: Revenue to N.Z £2,500,000 Spent in N.Z. ...... 3,500,000 Paid out of N.Z 1,500,000 Total £7,500,000 Now, our cdld water friends propose to raise the same revenue by Taxation on imported clothing, drapery, boots, foodstuffs, etc. How will they do it? Duty on all these goods averages at the most 20 per cent on landed cost — and that is quite high enough! Now, 24 millions is 20 per cent on 12 i millions, therefore, to raise 22 millions on the basis suggested, we must import (in addition to our present importations) more of these goods to the value of 124 millions. That 122 millions is the landed wholesale cost. When the 20 per cent duty is added, therefore, they cost the N.Z. firms 15 millions, a The retailers’ gross profits on drapery, clothing, etc., is never less than 50 "per cent all round. Thus these goods which cost 15 millions landed and duty paid will sell in the shops for 224 millions at the very least. In many cases they will go through middlemen —warehouses, etc. —whose extra profits will make the bill even greater. Now you begin to see what we are coining to, don’t you.

A Roundabout Road to Revenue:

If we adopt the Prohibitionist’s pretty scheme, this is what we are to do: . We are to; spend 224 millions instead of 74 millions to raise the same revenue. This money is to be spent entirely on goods manufactured outside New Zealand. Wc are to send 124 millions out of the country instead of 14 millions. But, you say, what has this got to do wii’ll*the Man on the Land? It has everything to do with the Man on the Land. He is to be “the melon." There is only on e way that a country can pay for its imports—and that is by exports. New Zealand’s “slump, Horn which we have been suffering these last two years, is directly due to over-importing and under-exporting. Your products, Mr Farmer, pay all our bills. Every hundred pounds’ worth of fur coats or furbelows lias to be paid for with a hundred pounds’ worth of butter or cheese or wool or hides or some oilier primary product. You, the Man on the Land, hav e to produce this stuff, pounds-worth for pounds-worlh, to square accounts. All Ihe book-keeping in the world cannot dodge that fundamental principle of trade. How to do it:

Do you see the delightful task the Prohibitionist has set for you—if his happy scheme were to work out?

You —bless your industry—you are to, raise 11 millions per annum in extra production from the land, you arc to export it, and you are to lind a market for it. There’s no other way of balancing the extra 11 millions which the Prohibitionist proposed to send out of the country.

The proposition is too ridiculous to be laboured further. It is just, another of the Prohibitionist's golden dreams.

No, Mr Farmer, if Prohibition comes this 24 millions of revenue will have to he found by some other means. It must mean an increase in land Tax and Income tax. It must—-a good deal of it at least—com e out of the pocket of the Man on the Land. To realise the enormous sum that has to be raised, It must be explained that if the whole 24 millions were added to land tax, that tax would be increased 150 per cent. For every £1 a farmer pays now, he would have to pay £2 10s. Can You Afford It? That is the question for you to consider before you vole for or against Prohibition. Wc ar c a Sober Nation. Our conduct does not demand drastic rcslriction in such a personal matter. We are carrying a far 100 heavy burden of taxation to-day. Why add to the nation’s financial difficulties and your own at such a critical time as the pre- ( sent?—Vote Continuance.■ *