War-Time Financial Problems

by Hartley Withers

V

A LEVY ON CAPITAL

January, 1918

The Objects of the Levy—Its Origin and History—How it would work in
Practice—The Attitude of the Chancellor—The Effects of the Scheme
in discouraging Thrift—Its Fallacies and Injustices—The Insuperable
Obstacles to its Application—Its Influence on Production—One of the
Tests of a Tax—Judged by this Test the Proposed Levy is doomed.

By some curious mental process the idea of a levy on capital has come into rapidly increasing prominence in the last few months, and seems to be gaining popularity in quarters where one would least expect it. On the other hand, it is naturally arousing intense opposition, both among those who would be most closely affected by its imposition, and also among those who view with grave concern the possible and probable economic effects of such a system of dealing with the national debt. I say "dealing with the national debt" because, as will be clear, as a system of raising money for the war the suggestion of the levy on capital has little or nothing to recommend it. But, as will also be made clear, the proposal has been put forward as a thing to be done immediately in order to increase the funds in the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be spent on war purposes.

A levy on capital is, of course, merely a variation of the tax on property, which has long existed in the United States, and had been resorted to before now by Governments, of which the German Government is a leading example, in order to provide funds for a special emergency. This it can very easily do as long as the levy is not too high. If, for example, you tax a man to the extent of 1-1/2 per cent. to 2 per cent. of the value of his property, on which he may be earning an average of 5 to 6 per cent. in interest, then the levy on capital becomes merely a form of income tax, assessed not according to the income of the taxpayer but according to the alleged value of his property. It is thus, again, a variation of the system long adopted in this country of a special rate of income tax on what is called "unearned" income, i.e. income from invested property. But it is only when one begins to adopt the broadminded views lately fashionable of the possibilities of a levy on capital and to talk of taking, say, 20 per cent. of the value of a man's property from him in the course of a year, that it becomes evident that he cannot be expected to pay anything like this sum, in cash, unless either a market is somehow provided—which seems difficult if all property owners at once are to be mulcted of a larger amount than their incomes—or unless the Government is prepared to accept part at least of the levy in the shape of property handed over at a valuation.

Before, however, we come to deal in detail with the difficulties and drawbacks of the suggestion, it may be interesting to trace the history of the movement in its favour, and to see some of the forms in which it has been put forward. It may be said that the ball was opened early last September when, in the Daily News of the 8th of that month, its able and always interesting editor dealt in one of his illuminating Saturday articles with the question of "How to Pay for the War." He began with the assumption that the capital of the individuals of the nation has increased during the war from 16,000 millions to 20,000 millions. A 10 per cent. levy on this, he proceeded, would realise 2000 millions. It would extinguish debt to that amount and reduce the interest on debt by 120 millions. The levy would be graduated—say, 5 per cent. on fortunes of £1000 to £20,000; 10 per cent. on £20,000 to £50,000; up to 30 per cent. on sums over £1,000,000; and the individual taxpayer was to pay the levy "in what form was convenient, in his stocks or his shares, his houses or his fields, in personalty or realty."

Just about the same time the Round Table, a quarterly magazine which is usually most illuminating on the subject of finance, chimed in with a more or less similar suggestion in an article on "Finance After the War." It remarked that the difficulty of applying a levy on capital is "probably not so great as appears at first sight." The total capital wealth of the community it estimated at about 24,000 millions sterling. To pay off a war debt of 3000 millions would therefore require a levy of one-eighth. Evidently this could not be raised in money, nor would it be necessary. Holders of War Loans would pay their proportion in a simple way by surrendering one-eighth of their scrip. Holders of other forms of property would be assessed for one-eighth of its value and be called on to acquire and to surrender to the State the same amount of War Loan scrip. To do this, they would be obliged to realise a part of their property or to mortgage it, "but," added the Round Table cheerfully, "there is no insuperable difficulty about that."

The first thing that strikes one when one examines these two schemes is the difference in their view concerning the amount of capital wealth available for taxation. Mr Gardiner made the comparatively modest estimate of 16,000 millions to 20,000 millions; the Round Table plumps for 24,000 millions, and, incidentally, it may be remarked that some conservative estimates put it as low as 11,000 millions. Thus we have a possible range for the fancy of the scheme builder of from 11,000 to 24,000 millions in the property on which taxation is proposed to be levied. But it is when we come to the details of these schemes that the difficulties begin to glare. Mr Gardiner tells us that millionaires would pay up to 30 per cent. of their property, and that they would pay in what form was convenient, in houses, fields, etc., etc. But he does not explain by what principle the Government is to distribute among the holders of the debt, the repayment of whom is the object of the levy, the strange assortment of miscellaneous assets which it would thus collect from the property owners of the country.

In commenting on this scheme the Economist of September 15th took the case of a man with a fortune of £100,000 invested before the war in a well-assorted list of securities, the whole of which he had, for patriotic reasons, converted during the war into War Loans. He would have no difficulty about paying his capital levy, for he would obviously surrender something between 10 and 20 per cent. of his holding. But, "in exchange for nearly two-thirds of the rest, he might find himself landed with houses and bits of land all over the country, a batch of unsaleable mining shares, a collection of blue china, a pearl necklace, a Chippendale sideboard, and a doubtful Titian," The Round Table's suggestion seems to be even more impracticable. According to it, holders of all other forms of property besides War Loans would be assessed for one-eighth of its value—it does not explain how the value is to be arrived at, nor how long it would take to do it—and would then be called on to acquire and to surrender to the State the same amount of War Loan scrip. To do this they would be obliged to realise a part of their property or to mortgage it, a process which would seem likely to produce a pretty state of affairs in the property market; and a very pleasant state of affairs indeed would arise for the holders of War Loan scrip, since there would be a large crowd of compulsory buyers in the market from whom the holders would apparently be able to extort any price that they liked for their stock.

The next stage in the proceedings was a deputation to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, concerning which more anon, of leaders of various groups of the Labour Party, to press upon Mr Bonar Law the principle of what is called "the Conscription of Wealth," and the publication at or soon after that time, which was about the middle of November, of a pamphlet on the subject of the "Conscription of Riches," by the War Emergency Workers' National Committee, 1, Victoria Street, S.W. Among what this pamphlet describes as "the three practicable methods of conscripting wealth" No. 1 is as follows:—

A Capital Tax, on the lines of the present Death Duties, which are graduated from nothing (on estates under £300, and legacies under £20) up to about 20 per cent. (on very large estates left as legacies to strangers).

If a "Death Duty" at the existing rates were now levied simultaneously on every person in the kingdom possessing over £300 wealth (every person might be legally deemed to have died, and to be his own heir), it might yield to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about £900,000,000. It would be necessary to offer a discount for payment in cash; and in order to avoid simultaneous forced sales, to accept, in lieu of cash, securities at a valuation; and to take mortgages on land.

Here it will be seen that the Emergency Workers had improved on the Round Table, and agreed with Mr Gardiner, by providing that the Government should take securities at a valuation and mortgages on land in lieu of cash in order to avoid simultaneous forced sales. But they do not seem to have perceived that, in so far as the Government took securities or accepted mortgages on land, it would not be getting money to pay for the war, which was the object of the proposed Conscription of Wealth, but would only be obtaining property from which the Government would in due course later on receive an income, probably averaging about one-twentieth of its value.

Perhaps, however, it would be more correct to say that those who put the scheme forward did not ignore this drawback to it, but rather liked it, for reasons quite irrelevant to the objects that they were apparently pursuing. A good deal of prominence was given about the same time to the question of a levy on capital in the New Statesman well known to be the organ of Mr Sidney Webb and other members of the Fabian Society. These distinguished and very intellectual Socialists would, of course, be quite pleased if, in an apparent endeavour to pay for the war, they actually succeeded in securing, by the Government's acquisition of blocks of securities from property owners, that official control of industry and production which is the object of State Socialists.

It will be noted, however, in this scheme that no mention is made of any forms of property to be accepted by the Government in lieu of cash except securities and mortgages on land. Items such as furniture, books, pictures and jewellery are ignored, and in one of the articles in the New Statesman, discussing the question of a capital levy, it was distinctly suggested that these commodities should be left out of the scheme so as to save the trouble involved by valuation. Unfortunately, if we leave out these forms of property the natural result is to stimulate the tendency, lately shown by an unfortunately large number of patriotic taxpayers, of putting money into pearl necklaces and other such gewgaws in order to avoid income tax. If by buying fur coats, old masters and diamond tiaras it will be be possible in future to avoid paying, not only income tax, but also a capital levy, it is to be feared that appeals to people to save their money and invest it in War Bonds are likely to be seriously interfered with.

Unfortunately, the Statesman was able to announce that the appeal for this system of taxation had been received with a good deal of sympathy by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the next stage in the history of the agitation was the publication on Boxing Day in several of the daily papers of what appeared to be an official summary, issued through the Central News, of what the Chancellor had said to the deputation of Labour Leaders introduced by Mr Sidney Webb, which waited on him, as already described, in the middle of November. Having pointed out that he had never seen any proposal which seemed to him to be practicable for getting money during the war by conscripting wealth, Mr Bonar Law added that, though "perhaps he had not thought enough about it to justify him in saying so," his own feeling was that it would be better, both for the wealthy classes and the country, to have this levy on capital, and reduce the burden of the national debt when the war was over. It need not be said that this statement by the Chancellor has been very far from helpful to the efforts of those who are trying to induce unthrifty citizens to save their money and put it into National War Bonds for the finance of the war.

"Why," people argue, "should we go out of our way to save and take these securities if, when the war is over, a large slice of our savings is to be taken away from us by means of this levy on capital? If we had been doubting between the enjoyment of such comforts and luxuries as are possible in war-time and the austere duty of thrift, we shall naturally now choose the pleasanter path, spend our money on ourselves and on those who depend on us, instead of saving it up to be taken away again when the war is over, while those who have spent their money as they liked will be let off scot free." Certainly, it is much to be regretted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have let such a statement go forth, especially as he himself admits that perhaps he has not thought enough about it to justify him in saying so. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not time to think about what he is going to say to a Labour deputation which approaches him on an extremely important revolution in our fiscal system, it is surely high time that we should get one who has sufficient leisure to enable him to give his mind to problems of this sort when they are put before him.

In the course of this review of the forms in which suggestions for a levy on capital have been put forward, some of the difficulties and injustices inherent in it have already been pointed out. Its advocates seem as a rule to base the demand for it upon an assumption which involves a complete fallacy. This is that, since the conscription of life has been applied during the war, it is necessary that conscription of wealth should also be brought to bear in order to make the war sacrifice of all classes equal. For instance, the Emergency Workers' pamphlet, quoted above, states that, "in view of the fact that the Government has not shrunk from Compulsory Conscription of Men," the Committee demands that "for all the future money required to carry on the war, the Government ought, in common fairness, to accompany the Conscription of Men by the Conscription of Wealth."

This contention seems to imply that the conscription of men and the conscription of wealth apply to two different classes; in other words, that the owners of wealth have been able to avoid the conscription of men. This, of course, is absolutely untrue. The wealthiest and the poorest have to serve the country in the front line alike, if they are fit. The proportion of those who are fit is probably higher among the wealthy classes, and, consequently, the conscription of men applies to them more severely. Again, the officers are largely drawn from the comparatively wealthy classes, and it is pretty certain that the proportion of casualties among officers has been higher during the war than among the rank and file. Thus, as far as the conscription of men is concerned, the sacrifice imposed upon all classes in the community is alike, or, if anything, presses rather more heavily upon those who own wealth. Conscription of wealth as well as conscription of life thus involves a double sacrifice to the owners of property.

This double sacrifice, in fact, the owners of property have, as is quite right, borne throughout the war by the much more rapid increase in direct taxation than in indirect. It is right that the owners of property should bear the heavier monetary burden of the war because they, having more to lose and therefore more to gain by a successful end of the war, should certainly pay a larger proportion of its cost. It was also inevitable that they should do so because, when money is wanted for the war or any other purpose, it can only be taken in large amounts from those who have a surplus over what is needed to provide them with the necessaries and decencies of life. But the argument which puts forward a capital levy on the ground that the rich have been escaping war sacrifice is fallacious in itself, and is a wicked misrepresentation likely to embitter still further the bad feeling between classes.

Nevertheless, Mr Bonar Law thinks that, since the cost of the war must inevitably fall chiefly upon the owners of property, and since it therefore becomes a question of expediency with them whether they should pay at once in the form of a capital levy or over a long series of years in increased taxation, he is inclined to think that the former method is one which would be most convenient to them and best for the country. This contention cannot be set aside lightly, and there can be no doubt that if, by making a dead lift, the wealthy classes of the country could throw off their shoulders a large part of the burden of the war debt, such a scheme is well worth considering as long as it does not carry with it serious drawbacks.

It seems to me, however, that the drawbacks are very considerable. In the first place, I have not seen any really practicable scheme of redeeming debt by means of a levy on capital In so far as the levy is paid in the form of surrendered War Loans, it is simple enough. In so far as it is paid in other securities or mortgages on land or other forms of property, it is difficult to see how the assets acquired by the State through the levy could be distributed among the debt holders whom it is proposed to pay off. Would they be forced to take securities, mortgages on land, furniture, etc., as the Government chose to distribute them, or would the Government have to nurse an enormous holding of various forms of property and gradually realise them and so pay off debt?

Again, a great injustice would surely be involved by laying the whole burden of this oppressive levy upon owners of accumulated property, so penalising those who save capital for the community and letting off those who squander their incomes. A characteristic argument on this point was provided by the New Statesman in a recent issue. It argued that, because ordinary income tax would still be exacted, the contrast between the successful barrister with an Income of £20,000 a year and no savings, who would consequently escape the capital levy, and the poor clergyman who had saved £1000 and would consequently be liable to it, fell to the ground. In other words, because both lawyer and parson paid income tax, it was fair that the former should escape the capital levy while the latter should have to pay it!

But needs must when the devil drives, and in a crisis of this kind it is not always possible to look too closely into questions of equity in raising money. It is necessary, however, to look very closely into the probable economic effects of any suggested form of taxation, and, if we find that it is likely to diminish the future wealth production of the nation, to reject it, however attractive it may seem to be at first sight. A levy on capital which would certainly check the incentive to save, by the fear that, if such a thing were once successfully put through, it might very likely be repeated, would dry up the springs of that supply of capital which is absolutely essential to the increase of the nation's productive power. Moreover, business men who suddenly found themselves shorn of 10 to 20 per cent. of their available capital would find their ability to enter into fresh enterprise seriously diminished just at the very time when it is essential that all the organisers of production and commerce in this country should be most actively engaged in every possible form of enterprise, in order to make good the ravages of war.