LORD HALIFAX AND THE TEACHERS
[To the Editor of THE SPECTATOR.]
Sia,—You say that teachers' " who take a pride in their profession " will not resent Lord Halifax's letter. Speaking not as a teacher but (I hope) as an intelligent citizen, I think anyone is entitled to resent being asked to accept an illogical argument as a reply, whatever one may think of the question at issue, which admittedly has many facets.
Lord Halifax compares the total sacrifice of Income Tax payers with the total sacrifice of the " cut " classes, and since the former is the larger sum, concludes that the Income Tax payers have the prior claim to restitution. He entirely ignores two elementary and incontrovertible but surely relevant facts, _(1) that the Income Tax payers are much the larger class, (2) that they include many from the " cut " classes, who are of course not exempt from Ineome Tax but pay like other citizens according to their means !
Surely the only fair basis of comparison is between (1) teachers (to take the special case at issue) who pay Income Tax and other Income Tax payers, (2) teachers who do not pay Income Tax and other citizens in a similar position. Teachers in (1) have " sacrificed " not only the additional Income Tax imposed in 1931, but also a sum which I think in every single case comes to more than the total of the enlarged Income Tax. Teachers in class (2)—is it worth continuing so elementary a calculation ?
Please understand that I am not making out a case. I do not even know—who does ?—to whom Lord Halifax was replying. I am merely protesting against . an argument that leaves one gasping.—I am, Sir, &c., N. Honosox. Preston Grammar School.
Previous page
