ENTERTAINMENT TAX.

Waikato Times, Volume 98, Issue 15315, 16 August 1923, Page 8

ENTERTAINMENT TAX.

POSITION IN ENGLAND. | THEATRES FACE RUIN. Doctoring- that unless something- "was done cinemas and theatres -were faced practically -with ruin, Lieut,-Com-mander Kenworthy moved a new clause to repeal the entertainments duty in the British House of Commons. Mr Hemmerdc, supporting the amendment, stated that in the ease of one of the -best, known London theatres for the six months from January 1 to June 9, the gross takings-were £27,669 and the tax was £3687, which was a tax on the gross receipts of 13 1-3 per cent., and on the not receipts of 16 per cent., and during the period of 23 weeks .this theatre played at a loss of £2864. If it had not been for the tax it, would have made a profit of £823. The gross receipts of another theatre almost equally well known were £27,465 from September 9 to December 2, 1922. The tax was £3692, which meant a tax on the gross receipts of 13J per cent, and on the net receipts ■of 15 per cent. The British National Opera Company in a 14-weeks’ run at the beginning of the jc ar took £56,481 gross. The tax amounted to £7659, or 13.6 per cent, on gross receipts and 14.69 per cent, on the net takings. From salaries a weekly reduction of ifi per cent, was made in order to indemnify shareholders' in the event of a 1-oss. The tax had turned a profit into a loss. It had remained for this country not to subsidise opera, but to tax it to such an extent that the company had to take 10 per cent, -of the salaries to help the Government. During a 12weeks’ run of musical comedy at the Winter Garden the gross receipts were £66,639, and the tax £8452, or a tax on net profits of 15.31 per -cent. At His Majesty’s Theatre the gross receipts from “East of Suez" were £58,675, and the tax was £9446, or 19 per cent, of net receipts. “ Oliver Cromwell,” during a short -run, produced £34 60 gross receipts. The tax was £551, or 19 per cent, of net receipts. The rents of theatres had also risen abnormally. The Savoy Theatre just before the war was let at less than £BO a week. Quite recently -it was let at between £4OO and £SOO a week. In thc>case of "East -of Suez” the gross receipts, apart from the tax, were nearly £2OOO a week, and yet there was a loss. Roughly speaking,,,they had the fact that, taking the leading theatres, whereas they could -have got cut for £BOO a week, to-day the cost was nearly £I2OO. Sir W. de Frece described himself as a total abolitionist, but be realised that the tax could not be got rid of altogether now, and he had an amendment asking for a modest concession this year, in the hope that next veai the tax would disappear altogether. His scale solely benefited the cheaper seats. The -managers had agreed to hand on any reduction they might obtain direct to the public. "The Immortal Hour” was, he declared, recently produced in London at a loss to the producer of £II,OOO, but the Government gained by its production £-iOOO from the entertainment tax. He pointed out Sir Alfred Butt gave figures of the receipts from 36 typical theatres. In 1920 the revenue was £1,745,000; in 1921 it was £1,487,000; in 1922 it was £1,266,000. „ . Sir W. Joynson-Hicks replied that he was not in a position to announce any concessions. The tax, which was now producing about £9,500,000, was put on in order that ail members of the community should share in the cost of the war, and should share in respect not -of a necessity, but of a luxury. Its repeal would be unjustifiable as long as there was a heavy tax on beer, tea, sugar, and income, Where losses were sustained there would still have been losses if the tax had been taken off and the reduction passed on to the public. From April 1 of last year to April 1 of this year there was an increase of seating capacity -in the music halls of the country of 1200; the net seating ca P a °‘ l y n ° f the cinemas was increased by 6fas,uuu. Did the committee know that on an average forty million people went W the cinemas every week? The real truth was that what the cinemas were suffering from was trade depression lower wages, the enormous sums paid for American films, and the growth o the altogether out-of-proportionsal-aries paid to artists. Really a reduction of this tax was in favour of “Fatty" Arbuckle and his friends. He saw that one well-known actor had been engaged for the cinemas at £ iOO a week for 10 years —a sum equal to hip salaries of no fewer than seven Secretaries of Stale. And then hon members came down to that House and said that the industry was being destroyed by taxation! It was not taxa stated that had there been sufficient money aval able he would have been only 100 pleased to j do what he could with regard to the entertainments duty. Ild ? hardly on many people, and it was a ax to which consideration would be riven as soon as there was money available but this year it was quite impracticable to deal with it, having regard to the remissions of taxation Which had been made in other drrecl*°The amendment was defeated by 274 to 153.