THE ADVANCE OF SOCIALISM.
[To THE EDITOR OP TRE "SPECTATOR.] SIR,—May one who would prefer the prefix " ardent " to that of " moderate " to his title of "Liberal" venture to express his amazement at the cry of " Socialism " raised by so many opponents of this present Budget, and raised, Sir, with your approbation ? This Free-trade Budget, after increasing certain direct imposts, such as the Income-tax and the Death-duties, introduces one new element, the taxation of landowners (for like you, Sir, I prefer to avoid speaking of taxing the inanimate) under certain conditions. If one were asked to put into a sentence the moral objection to Socialism, the reply would be that under Socialism the State would take from the individual that which he has certainly earned. And the whole basis of Mr. Lloyd George's land taxation is that of taking from the individual what he does not earn. The mining royalty owner does not earn his royalties. The man who sells his property at over 10 per cent. above the cost of his improvements plus the value of his land at purchase does not earn that advance in price. And the tax on owners of undeveloped land (with special exemption of purely agricul- tural land) is the best method available of obtaining some bold on the individual speculator who holds back land from public use till he obtains from the labours of the community an enhanced value therefor. Yon yourself, Sir, have admitted that the best type of landowner benefits largely from the recent extension of allowance in the Income-tax for buildings or other improvements upon an estate, and to the present writer it seems that the shifting of taxation from that iadividual owner of land who improves his property to that individual owner of land whose property is improved (in value) by outside agency is a beneficial move, and one utterly antagonistic to the spirit of Socialism. To many of us who in the North of England are at hand-grips with Socialism, and have in the past drawn largely upon your columns for argument and for illustrations, your contention that this direct encouragement to personal individual attention to property, as against its treatment as a purely speculative possession, is Socialism is a matter for the deepest regret. May I voice our protest P—I am, Sir, &c., RONALD F. WALKER %newts House, Hirfield. (Yorkshire "99" Club).
[The "taking from the individual what he does not earn" our correspondent rightly describes as lying at the basis of the land clauses. If Mr. Lloyd George means to apply this principle to land alone, he is acting with gross unfairness. If he intends to extend its application to other forms of property, he will penalise investment and cripple commercial development. Socialism is the negation of private property, not merely in "earned" property, but in all property. The Budget, by differentiating between land and other property, and between a supposed earned and unearned increment, adopts a most mischievous, unjust, and therefore impolitic principle. That is also the principle upon which the " heady " fabric of Socialism is based. No doubt we have already plenty of Socialistic legislation on the statute-book, with many conse- quent evils to the State, but that seems to us a very poor reason for adding more. We have heard of "a hair of the dog that bit you " as a remedy, but Mr. Lloyd George wants us to swallow half the animal. Our correspondent is, we are sure, sincerely anxious to help the poor. How strange that it has not occurred to him that one of the best ways of doing this is to keep taxation within bounds ! Unfortunately, like most modern Liberals, he seems to regard taxation, especially if it falls upon landlords, as a good in itself,—a sort of manure which, if only spread generously enough, will increase the wealth of the nation. That is not our reading of economic science.—ED. Spectator.]
Previous page
