On Thursday, at Wolverhampton, Sir Henry Fowler delivered his annual
address to his constituency. After a generous tribute to the late Mr. Tom Ellis, he dealt with the qUeStion of national finance. We cannot follow_ him in detail, but may note his conclusion that at present "the manual labour class " pays about £45,000,000 a year of the taxes, while "the other classes " contribute about £54,000,000. But even assuming that this calculation is correct—a large assumption—it cannot be said to help us very much in regard to the essential problem of finance,—namely, the equalisation of taxation, and the bearing by each man of his fair share of the national burden. In the first place, manual labour affords by no means a sound distinction beween the.poor and the well- to-do. There are plenty of clerks and other non-manual workers who are far worse off and far less able to bear the burdens of taxation than the skilled artisan, who works with his hands, but earns, say, £4, or even £5, a week, while the poor "quill- driVer " is only making his £70 a year. What one would like to know, is how much is paid to taxation respectively by the men with under £5 a week and the men with incomes over that amount. We are inclined to think that in spite of the direct taxes the men in the poorer class (unless they neither drink nor smoke) pay more than their fair share. Sir Henry Fowler ended his speech by declaring that the coming deficit ought not to be met either by borrowing or suspending the Sinking Fund, but only by fresh taxation or a reduction of expenditure. The Opposition would not be human if they did. not desire to force the odium of imposing fresh taxation on their rivals ; but we trust the Government will not be superstitious about the Sinking Funds.
Previous page
