Britain For The British Part 12

Others, again, recommend a land tax, and with perfect justice. If the City Council improves a street, at the cost of the ratepayer, the landlord raises his rent. What does that mean? It means that the ratepayer has increased the value of the landlord's property at the cost of the rates. It would only be just, then, that the whole increase should be taken back from the landlord by the city.

Therefore, it would be quite just to tax the landlords to the full extent of their "unearned increment."

In _Progress and Poverty_, and in the book on _Land Nationalisation_ by Dr. Alfred Russell Wallace, you will find these subjects of the taxation and the purchase of land fully and clearly treated.

My object is to show that it is to the interest of the nation that the private owners.h.i.+p of land should cease.

_Books to Read on the Land_:--

_Progress and Poverty._ By Henry George, 1s. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, & Co.

_Land Nationalisation._ By Alfred Russell Wallace, 1s. Swan Sonnenschein.

_Five Precursors of Henry George._ By J. Morrison Davidson. London, Labour Leader Office, 1s.

CHAPTER VI

LUXURY AND THE GREAT USEFUL EMPLOYMENT FRAUD

There is one excuse which is still too often made for the extravagance of the rich, and that is the excuse that "_The consumption of luxuries by the rich finds useful employment for the poor_."

It is a ridiculous excuse, and there is no eminent economist in the world who does not laugh at it; but the capitalist, the landlord, and many pressmen still think it is good enough to mislead or silence the people with.

As it is the _only_ excuse the rich have to offer for their wasteful expenditure and costly idleness, it is worth while taking pains to convince the workers that it is no excuse at all.

It is a mere error or falsehood, of course, but it is such an old-established error, such a plausible lie, and is repeated so often and so loudly by non-Socialists, that its disproof is essential. Indeed, I regard it as a matter of great importance that this subject of luxury and labour should be thoroughly understanded of the people.

Here is this rich man's excuse, or defence, as it was stated by the Duke of Argyll about a dozen years ago. So slowly do the people learn, and so ignorant or dishonest does the Press remain, that the foolish statement is still quite up to date--

But there are at least some things to be seen which are in the nature of facts and not at all in the nature of speculation or mere opinion. Amongst these some become clear from the mere clearing up of the meaning of words such as "the unemployed." Employment in this sense is the hiring of manual labour for the supply of human wants.

_The more these wants are stimulated and multiplied the more widespread will be the inducement to hire. Therefore all outcries and prejudices against the progress of wealth and of what is called "luxury" are nothing but outcries of prejudice against the very sources and fountains of all employment._ This conclusion is absolutely certain.

I have no doubt at all that the duke honestly believed that statement, and I daresay there are hundreds of eminent persons still alive who are no wiser than he.

The duke is quite correct in saying that "the more the wants of the rich are stimulated" the more employment there will be for the people. But after all, that only means that the more the rich waste, the harder the poor must work.

The fact is, the duke has omitted the most essential factor from the sum: he does not say how the rich man gets his money, nor from _whom_ he gets his money. A ducal landlord draws, say, 100,000 a year in rent from his estates.

Who pays the rent? The farmers. Who earns the rent? The farmers and the labourers.

These men earn and pay the rent, and the ducal landlord takes it.

What does the duke do with the rent? He spends it. We are told that he spends it in finding useful employment for the poor, and one intelligent newspaper says--

A rich man cannot spend his money without finding employment for vast numbers of people who, without him, would starve.

That implies that the poor live on the rich. Now, I maintain that the rich live on the poor. Let us see.

The duke buys food, clothing, and lodging for himself, for his family, and for his servants. He buys, let us say, a suit of clothes for himself. That finds work for a tailor. And we are told that but for the duke the tailor must starve. _Why?_

The agricultural labourer is badly in want of clothes; cannot _he_ find the tailor work? No. The labourer wants clothes, but he has no money.

_Why_ has he no money? _Because the duke has taken his clothing money for rent!_

Then in the first place it is because the duke has taken the labourer's money that the tailor has no work. Then if the duke did not take the labourer's money the labourer could buy clothes? Yes. Then if the duke did not take the labourer's money the tailor _would_ have work? Yes.

Then it is not the duke's money, but the labourer's money, which keeps the tailor from starving? Yes. Then in this case the duke is no use? He is worse than useless. The labourer, who _earns_ the money, has no clothes, and the idle duke has clothes.

So that what the duke really does is to take the earnings of the labourer and spend them on clothes for _himself_.

Well, suppose I said to a farmer, "You give me five s.h.i.+llings a week out of your earnings, and I will find employment for a man to make cigars, _I_ will smoke the cigars."

What would the farmer say? Would he not say, "Why should I employ you to smoke cigars which I pay for? If the cigar maker needs work, why should I not employ him myself, and smoke the cigars myself, since I am to pay for them?"

Would not the farmer speak sense? And would not the labourer speak sense if he said to the duke, "Why should I employ you to wear out breeches which I pay for?"

My offer to smoke the farmer's cigars is no more impudent than the a.s.sertion of the Duke of Argyll, that he, the duke, finds employment for a tailor by wearing out clothes for which the farmer has to pay.

If the farmer paid no rent, _he_ could employ the tailor, and he would have the clothes. The duke does nothing more than deprive the farmer of his clothes.

But this is not the whole case against the duke. The duke does not spend _all_ the rent in finding work for the poor. He spends a good deal of it on food and drink for himself and his dependants. This wealth is consumed--it is _wasted_, for it is consumed by men who produce nothing.

And it all comes from the earnings of the men who pay the rent.

Therefore, if the farmer and his men, instead of giving the money to the duke for rent, could spend it on themselves, they would find more employment for the poor than the duke can, because they would be able to spend all that the duke and his enormous retinue of servants waste.

Although the duke (with the labourer's money) does find work for some tailors, milliners, builders, bootmakers, and others, yet he does not find work for them all. There are always some tailors, bootmakers, and builders out of work.

Now, I understand that in this country about 14,000,000 a year are spent on horse-racing and hunting. This is spent by the rich. If it were not spent on horse-racing and hunting, it could be spent on useful things, and then, perhaps, there would be fewer tailors and other working men out of work.

But you may say, "What then would become of the huntsmen, jockeys, servants, and others who now live on hunting and on racing?" A very natural question. Allow me to explain the difference between necessaries and luxuries.

All the things made or used by man may be divided into two cla.s.ses, under the heads of necessaries and luxuries.

I should count as necessaries all those things which are essential to the highest form of human life.

All those things which are not necessary to the highest form of human life I should call luxuries, or superfluities.

For instance, I should call food, clothing, houses, fuel, books, pictures, and musical instruments, necessaries; and I should call diamond ear-rings, racehorses, and broughams luxuries.

Now it is evident that all those things, whether luxuries or necessaries, are made by labour. Diamond rings, loaves of bread, grand pianos, and flat irons do not grow on trees; they must be made by the labour of the people. And it is very clear that the more luxuries a people produce, the fewer necessaries they will produce.