LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
A TAX ON PAPER. [TO THE EDITOR CF THE " SPECTATOR]
Sin,—I see that "A Revenue Official," writing as with authority to the Times, tells us that Mr. Chamberlain will atone for taxing our food by taxing imports of manufactures. As a humble journalist whose mission it is to spoil, so many sheets of good, clean paper per diem, it occurs to me that paper is a manufactured article, although one of my "raw materials " ; and that, further, it is a raw material to the publisher also. Far be it from me to deny that there are journals which might be taxed out of existence to the great advantage of the commonweal. I am also aware that Byron made a certain unkind reference to "publishers and sinners." Nevertheless, as a man of sense and sensibility, I represent that the faithful Telegraph, for instance, has done nothing to deserve taxation. Exactly how much paper is made in the United Kingdom I do not know, but certain it is that our printing industry has not suffered through Free-trade, for I find that not only imports of paper, but imports of materials used by paper-makers, have greatly increased in the last fifteen years. In the first six months of this year we imported the following :- PAPER MATERIAL IMPORTS, JANUARY TO .TUNE, 1903.
Linen and cotton rags ... .R98,000 Esparto and other fibres... ... ... 336,000 Wood-pulp... ... 1,088,000 In six months 41,522,000 or at the rate of £3,000,000 per annum. In 1887 our imports of paper material were valued at only £2,270,000. This shows unmistakably that our paper-makers have not been ruined by paper imports. An easy way to ruin them, however, would be to give a "preference" to Canadian wood-pulp. I am aware that Mr. Chamberlain has stated that he never—no, never— would tax materials ; but as he thinks of taxing food, which is the raw material of the human machine, I do not attach too much importance to the disclaimer. I only know that if I were a Canadian wood-pulp man, and saw my grain-producing friends making profits at the expense of the played-out Britisher, I should make a righteous endeavour, in the in- terests of my hearth and home, to be also " preferred " by the dear old Mother-country. But apart from the question of taxing raw materials, Mr. Chamberlain makes no secret of his desire to tax manufactures, which is to tax paper amongst other things. Here is the value of the paper we imported in the first six months of this year :—
IMPORTS OP PAPER, JANUARY TO JUNE, 1903.
Paper on reels ("news " paper) £395,740 Paper, fiat ... 1,200,458 In six months. .R1,596,198 or at the rate of 23,192,000 per annum. In 1887 we imported only one-half this quantity of paper, showing how much more food is offered to British brains nowadays than only fifteen years ago. We are both making and importing more paper. Of the making of periodicals, as of the making of books, there is no end. It was pointed out the other day in the Spectator that the building trade, having no exports, is not considered in connection with fiscal policy. It seems to me that the
same might be said of the printing and publishing trades. If you tax imported paper you raise the price of all paper, whether made at home or brought from oversee. In doing so you raise the price of the raw material of an important industry, reducing the profits of publishers, killing off weak periodicals and cheap books, and throwing out of employ- ment compositors, machinemen, clerks, warehousemen, bookbinders, and last, but not least, poor writer- fellows like myself. Modern industry is such a com- plicated affair that a small tkx, recklessly imposed by an unthinking Chancellor of the Exchequer, produces all kinds of unexpected results, as in the case of the shilling " registration " duty on corn. It is important to note that a 10 per cent. duty on imported paper would yield the Revenue only £300,000, but it would cost the users of paper 10 per cent. on their entire consumption, which is probably not far short of £12,000,000 per annum. Newspaper proprietors and pub- lishers would be fined £1,200,000 or so to give the Treasury £300,000, and to put extra profits into the pockets of British paper-makers. A gentleman with an "open mind" is writing to all the papers to show that import-duties are paid, not by the consumer, but by the foreigner, and that more often than not to put on a duty is to send down the price of the article taxed. If this is really the case, I hope Mr. Chamberlain will not spare the foreigner, but will tax everything up to the hilt. It would give me the keenest joy to think that my paper was cheaper, and that in addition some foreign person was paying my share of the Income-tax.—I am, Sir, &c., LicoNts.
[We have dealt with this letter in our "News of the Week."—Ed. Spectator.]
Previous page
