[To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.] SIR,—The large measures required
to balance the Budget should not, it seems, blind us to the unique opportunity for the claim of certain small measures which would tax luxury, spread taxation more equitably or assist small traders who have suffered unfairly in the post-War atmosphere of hustle. Some small matters often advocated, such as readjusting various stamp duties, may be ruled out at once, since they would mainly affect, in some trifling degree, the overburdened
Income Tax payer, without any really compensating advan- tage. A case for differentiating taxation of pure luxury may be seen as follows. Of two persons of moderate income of equal amount, the one may, owing- to possessing a landed estate or to other heavy responsibilities,- have to live very carefully or even parsimoniously to avoid dismissal of work- men, while the other person, with perhaps only two or three in family, will sometimes keep a large staff of domestic ser- vants, at present untaxed, at the same time absorbing service which poorer people have great difficulty in obtaining, and so artificially raising wage rates.
In order to tax this luxury, and at the same time remedy a well-recognized sex grievance, it would seem that domestic indoor and outdoor servants, of both sexes equally, should, to some moderate number, say, four, be entertained tax free, and the whole surplus (instead of males only) be taxable at 15s. each, or some higher rate.—I am, Sir, &c.,
LIBERAL.
Previous page
