PETROL TAX.

Waikato Times, Volume 118, Issue 19665, 27 August 1935, Page 9

PETROL TAX.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —Mr Stewart Reid 6ays: "I would like Mr Masters to keep to the subject under discussion. Petrol tax was the subject,” and he says he Is not going to be drawn Into a discussion on companies’ profits. I can assure Mr Reid that I have no wish to draw him into a discussion. All I wish is a straightforward answer to a straightforward question. I am really sorry if 1 have not given him the answer he wished. I honestly answered the question and gave my reasons for arriving at the reply. Now, Sir, I do say emphatically that the oil companies are not carrying any part of the petrol tax; and to question No. 2, “If there were not a tax, woiuld benzine be selling at is per gallon?” 1 say it would not be more than iOid per gallon if free entry were allowed into New Zealand, and would’ pay over 20 per cent, profit. But I feel that, had not. that debate taken place in Parliament from December 8 to 12, 1933 (Debate No. 11), we w’ould have been paying 2s 4d per gallon. Am I correct? 1 should hate to be under a wrong impression. I was going to the races. My friend said, “Put 115 on a certain horse." I went specially to do so, but had a' little benzine trouble on the road. This made me late. The horse won and paid £lO5. Did not I lose £525? Perhaps the oil companies lost more than I did.

I say emphatically that at 2s 4d per gallon the public would have been robbed. There Is no other word to express it. I do not wish to draw Mr Reid, but what did Mr Reid do to protect the users from being charged that extortionate, 2s 4d per gallon? Keeping to the subject matter, petrol lax. Will Mr Reid now answer my question? He represents us in Parliament. I merely ask xvhat action lie took and his candid opinion on the following — No. 1; Had not there been a debate, would benzine lie selling at less than 2s 4d per gallon? No. 2: Does Mr Reid consider a commodity like benzine should be allowed an unrestricted monopoly to charge and make profits up to 45 per cent., as stated in debate No. 11?

No. 3: Does Mr Reid consider ilio Government are justified, when there is a special lax of id per gallon for national revenue, in taking £1,500,000 out of the special highways construction lax of Od per gallon; and, further,- in addition to the £1,500,000 already taken, lo lake a further £500,000 per annum out of the special highways benzine tax and loan it to the Highways Board aL interest? 'Die Highways Board, it appears lo me, xvill soon be paying £500,000 per annum In interest on moneys taken oul of the special highways petrol lax of Gd per gallon. Am I correct? i have no wish to draw Mr Reid, bait, feel entitled to a fair reply.—l am, etc., E. M. MASTERS. Hamilton. August 20, 1935.