MICK AND MAC DISCUSS REVENUE.

White Ribbon, Volume 33, Issue 385, 18 August 1927, Page 1

MICK AND MAC DISCUSS REVENUE.

Well, my boy, it s all wry well for you to talk a lot of hot air, but the fact remains that the Liquor Trade gives the Government a revenue of over 13 million pounds every year. If you vote the trade out that revenue must be made up. I like your way of putting it. the Liquor Trade gives the Government what nonsense! The people of this Dominion spend over eight million pounds every year in strong drink. Then the trade passes on less than two million to the Government. The point for us to consider is, can wo not spvnd that money in a way that will pord lice more revenue to the State. 1 don't quite follow you. Thirsty souls pour eight millions down their throats every year. Under Prohibition what wall they do with that money. Bury it, eh? Don’t be a fool, of course they'll spend it. You’ve said it. Now can you tell me anything they can spend it on which will return less to the State than liquor does. No, I can’t say so. You can't because there is no trade which pays less In wages, or employs less men in proportion to its takings than this trade does. Can you prove that? Yes. over and over again. Take a concrete example. Has Prohibition ruined the United States? It’s nonsense to say that Prohibition is responsible for the wealth of the U S A.

I didn „ z&; mat. l simply said it has not ruined the States. And you might note the fact that Henry Ford, a leading business man, as well as leading economists, say, that the increased prosperity of the States is largely due to the fact that the 500 millions that used to l* 1 spent in drink is now’ being spent on useful yo4s, or being put into enterprises increase the demand for labour a nd\atlmulate Industry. Take our own License an‘as. You live in Masterto|L. Did you vote for Restoration poll. I’m not a wqL Masterton has never been so as it is now. Well, you may not be a fool, but you’re a rotten logician. You vote Masterton “dry” to keep it prosperous, and you vote the Dominion “wot" for the same reason. Our No License boroughs arc all prosperous. Ashburton is one of the richest boroughs in the Dominon. And after 21 years of No License in Invercargill, the daily paper said in a leader, “We do not say that No License is the cause of our prosperity, but we think w’e can safely say that No License has not ruined Invercargill.” Come down to tin tacks. How do you propose to make up this revenue? You admit money will be spent on other goods. Well, if it is spent on boots, clothing, etc., it will greatly add to employment of labour, the merchants and traders with increased trade, will pay larger income tax. The goods carried on the railways will increase their income. If we spend part in luxuries such as motor cars, foreign made goods, etc., the

customs will reap the benefit. If we go to picture shows and entertainments the amusement tax will go up at a bound. Some of the money w-’l go into the Savings Bank, where the Government will have the use of it. You put on your thinking cap, sir, and tell me any way this over eight millions can be employed, and not add to our State revenue. You may be right, I’ll think about it seriously. That’s all wv want. When people think seriously about the liquor trade they invariably come to the conclusion that it is a parasite sucking the life blood of every nation where it is licensed to do its evil work. But would these increases make up for the entile loss of liquor revenue? I believe so. But there's another side to the picture. There are two ways of making ends meet, as every housewife knows, e.g., increase the income, lessen the expenditure. You’ve told me how you propose to do the first, what about the expenditure? My dear boy, do you read the daily papers. You’ll find the finest propaganda for Prohibition in the Police Court records Dud. for a year keep a note of hov many cases come before the Court in w’hicli there is no question of drink involved. You talk about the revenue the Trade gives the Government. Just look for a moment at what the Trade costs the Government. How does the Trade cost the Government anything? I don’t quite see what you mean.

Well, it coats the taxpayer. You and I are paying all the time to clear up the wreckage this Traile makes. Our Courts are working overtime, fresh judges and magistrates being asked for to overtake the work. When you have made up the percentage ot cases caused by drink, then you can estimate the saving if these were “cut out.” A very conservative estimate by men in close touch with our police, justice, prisons, Hospital and Charitable Aid Boards is that it costs the State over 31 million pounds to pay for what Strong Drink costs thes* Departments. In that one way you will save almost twice the entire liquor revenue. It costs another quarter of a million annually to keep the poor children whose parents are ruined by strong drink. You make out a strong case for your side. And a true one. Think it over, prove that all I have said is true, and next tiPit* we meet we ll take up another sice of the problem, the racial menace of this trade, the deterioration in national physique and in national character, caused by it. and the awful suffering it brings to our people and our race. If what you say is true, and it looks like it is, why are our politicians so loathe to bring it into force? W. E. Gladstone said, when asked about the loss of liquor revenue in Great Britain —a far more serious matter than here —“Give me a sober people, and I’ll have no difficulty in providing the revenue.’ I’nfortunately, this Dominion has never had a Premier with the financial insight, the moral courage, ar.d the absolute candour of a Gladstone.