THE BUDGET AND RATING RELIEF [To the Editor of the
Sracraroa.] Sni,—While the Budget has been hailed by many as wonderful and constructive, it is lamentably unfair. Why is the rating relief to be given to producers—as such, regardless of whether they are prosperous or not ? Mr. Neville Chamberlain, answering some such question at Tynemouth, replied to the effect that while it was vital to help derelict industries it was a good thing to help prosperous ones to be more prosperous. Thus, firms like J. & P. Coats, Imperial Tobacco, Courtaulch, Reeldtts, Inveresk Paper, gramophone companies, &c., who can pay 20 per cent. to 00 per cent. plus bonus-shares- which give them all the scope they need for development if they want to develop—are to have their rates reduced by three-quarters.
Stock farmers, many of whom make good profits, and some of the more up-to-date or forties to agriculturists are to pay no more rates. Let us examine an assessment form and see what the rates are for :- I.
Poor Law. Police. Education. Lighting. Public Parks. Scavenging, &o. • „ Libraries. Hospitals. Housing and Town Planning. Mental Deficiency and Public Health Services.
Surely the items in the first column should be borne in proportion to means to pay—whether those means, are obtained by production, by distribution, or professionally. The items in column II., it is true, bear some relation to the size of building or the number of employees.
Yet, when farmers do make profits they are not to contribute their share towards the social services. Neither firms which are prosperous now, or which it is hoped will be prosperous again in a year or two, are to bear any share in the cost of social services. Still, those who earn enormous incomes professionally or in offices rated at a paltry £100 or £200 per year are to contribute less to social services than those in the distributing trades who' may make only one-hUndredth part
of their income indeed, an actual loss.
The usual reply is that it would be too difficult to arrange, but I cannot think it would be more difficult than the present unjust scheme with its alteration of areas and block grants. If there is anything worth trying for in this world it is surely
justice. And justice must be more beneficial in its ultimate results than deliberate injustice such as the Budget proposes.
The idea of rating relief is exactly what the country wants, but surely Mr. Churchill 'can use his ingenuity to produce a
scheme which will give no man just cause to grouse by making all pay proportionally to their means.
Rates payable on profits would necessitate only one collection instead of two and further would save the cost of continual reassessments. The other injustice he has not tackled is the non-taxation of undistributed profits or surpluses of co-operative societies.—I am,* Sir, &'e.,
R. REAY BELL.
1 North Terrace, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
Previous page
