The Waikato Times With which le Incorporated The Waikato Arges- THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1931. WORK OR MAINTENANCE?

Waikato Times, Volume 109, Issue 18346, 4 June 1931, Page 6

The Waikato Times With which le Incorporated The Waikato ArgesTHURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1931. WORK OR MAINTENANCE?

“Provide work, or pay maintenance at full wage rate” is the slogan of some of those who claim to represent the workers in this Dominion. It is .significant to note that these same leaders are always to the fore when the cry of the unemployed is heard in the land. Therefore it is a permissible Inference that they are either “unemployables" or “won’t -works." It is somewhat disooncertlng, however, to learn that the British Trades Union Congress in the Old Country has adopted a somewhat similar attitude, and has decided to submit its suggestion to the Royal Commission on unemployment, which Is conducting its investigations in England. The General Council of the Congress propose that every unemployed person should be paid a maintenance grant at rates considerably higher than the existing rales of unemployment benefit, and that the money should be found by a special income-tax, levied at whatever rale be necessary, subject to the proviso that the rate on incomes under £250 should not exceed one per cent. By its terms of reference the Commission is instructed to make recommendations as to the scope and provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Scheme —the permanence of the principle of insurance being thereby assumed —and how the scheme can 'be made “solvent and selfsupporting" and what arrangements should be made outside the scheme for the able-bodied unemployed unable to qualify for Inclusion in it. The answer of the General Council is that there should be no insurance at all, that a national scheme pf outdoor relief should be substituted, and that that scheme should be financed by calls upon the taxpayer unlimited save In the case of the most probable 'beneficiaries. “The objection to the complete abolition of the principle of insurance need . not be elaborated ’ (comments the Londor^ Times). Opposition to contributory schemes Is the stock-in-lrade of the Socialist Party, and as such must be fought by all who believe that large-scale bribery of the electorate is the poison of democracy. But it is worth while pointing out that the scheme of the General Council would offer opportunities for such bribery on an unprecedented scale. Even if the volume of unemployment did not increase, the cost of maintenance at the rates suggested would be equal to the present yield of an income-tax of 2s 6d in the pound, or about £150,000,000. In the case of ail with incomes under £3 a week Lhe contribution toward this cost would be less than their present contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund. If the schemo followed the legislation of New South Wales properly called the Unemployment Relief Tax Act, J93o—upon which it appears lo have been modelled, the necessary taxation would fall both upon private incomes and upon company profits, ami in so far as high taxation is a cause of unemployment must throw more people out of work. The scheme is vicious in principle because it offers an electoral majority benefits largely at the expense of an electoral minorllj*. because it embodies the undesirable practice of earmarking taxes for special purposes, and because it would intensify the evil which it is designed 'to palliate. Contributors are to be brought in irrespective of their risk of unemployment and, broadly speaking, made to

contribute in inverse proportion to that risk. There is to be no relation whatever between the contribution and the benefit of the individual. The intention appears to be to bring in, as under the German scheme, all industries and many professions without including the saving principle of the German scheme —namely, the graduation of benefit according to contributions. So far from remedying existing “legal" abuses, the scheme could not fail to intensify them. There Is to he no limit to the duration of benefit and no actuarial qualification for it. The protection against exploitation of the taxpayer will be even less than at present. The scheme indeed appears designed to levy a special tax on those who are foolish enough to work for the relief of those who are wise enough to idle. For example, If the authors of the scheme are serious in suggesting that benefit should be paid at a flat rate and that all wage-earners should be included, an agricultural labourer, with a wife and three children would receive forty-five shillings a week if he managed to avoid work and thirty shillings a week if he managed to obtain it. It is hard to believe that anybody would put forward a scheme from which such ludicrous and disastrous consequences would follow. No more than a forecast of the scheme has yet been made public. The General Council have, therefore, a chance to prepare and present something better to the Royal Commission, and they certainly owe it to their own reputation as a responsible body to do so."