War-Time Financial Problems

by Hartley Withers

XV

POST-WAR FINANCE

November, 1918

Taxation after the War—Mr. Hoare's Scheme described and analysed—The Position of the Rentier—Estimates of the Post-War Debt—The Compulsory Loan Proposal—What Advantages has it over a Levy on Capital?—The Argument from Social Justice—Questions still to be answered—The Choice between a Levy and Stiff Taxation—Are we still a Creditor Nation?—Our Debt not a Hopeless Problem—Suggestions for solving it.

Under this heading two very interesting articles were contributed to the October issue of Sperling's Journal by Mr Alfred Hoare and an "Ex-M.P.," and the subject is clearly one to which, now that the end of the war has been brought appreciably nearer by the feats of the Allied armies, too much thought and discussion can hardly be given. How are we going to face the problem that has been built up for us by the bad finance of the war, the low proportion of its cost that has been paid for out of taxation, and the consequent huge debt with which—it is already over £7000 millions gross—the State will be saddled? Mr. Hoare answered the question by proposing a scheme of taxation of what he called Rente, by which he meant all forms of "unearned income"—"rentals from freehold and leasehold property, interest upon loans whether public or private, and dividends on joint stock companies or sleeping partnerships." He added that in his opinion earned income above a certain figure might reasonably be added to this category on the ground that it has, in some instances, very much the same characteristics as unearned; the income of a "successful professional man or clown or jockey or opera star" being due to peculiar qualities; "and it would be no great hardship if earned income above, say, a thousand a year for a married couple, with an additional three hundred for every child under twenty-five years of age were regarded as unearned, and taxed accordingly." Income was thus the basis of Mr Hoare's scheme. Rente he regards as an agency regulating distribution, and requiring to be constantly checked. "It is," he says, "an elementary principle of social health, and economic prosperity that the share of the national wealth enjoyed by the Rentier, by the owner, that is, of unearned income, should not be excessive," Most people who can follow his admirable example and take a detached and unbiassed view of questions which affect their pocket so closely, will agree with him In this opinion. The Rentier lives on the proceeds of work done in the past by him or by some other person; and it is not good for our economic health that he should grow too fat at the expense of those who are working now, lest the latter be discouraged and work with less spirit.

At the same time we have to remember that the work done in the past by the Rentier or those whom he represents, has given us the plant and equipment (in the widest sense of the phrase) with which we are now working. If, therefore, we penalise the Rentier too severely we shall discourage his future creation; the present race of earners, if they see that those who are living on past savings are shorn too close will be deterred from saving, will put their surplus earnings into extravagant spending instead of into plant and equipment, and the economic future of the nation, and of the world, will be pro tanto less hopeful. If once our fiscal system is going to propagate the view—already so rampant among the happy-go-lucky citizens of this unthrifty people—that the worst thing to do with money is to save it there will be bad times ahead for our industry and commerce, which can only get the capital that it needs if somebody saves it. Mr Hoare's elaborate calculations led him to conclusions involving a tax of 11s. 6d. in the pound on unearned income. This figure is, I hope, needlessly high. To arrive at it he assumed that peace might be concluded towards the end of 1919, and that when peace conditions are fully re-established—which will take, he thinks, three years, the National Debt will amount to £10,000 millions, involving annual interest of £500 millions, which, added to the total Rente of the country in 1913 (which he made out to be £520 millions), will make a total Rente in 1923 of £1020 millions. His view is that the burden of the National Debt should be thrown by means of the income tax upon the national Rente, not taxing it out of existence, but by such a scale of taxation as would reduce the net Rente of the country to approximately the level at which it stood before the war.

There is good reason to hope that Mr Hoare's figures will not be reached. He took £10,000 millions merely as a round sum. Mr Bonar Law, it will be remembered, worked out our net debt on March 31st next at £6856 millions, taking credit for half the estimated amount of loans to Allies as a good asset. If we prefer as sounder bookkeeping to write off the whole of our loans to Allies for the time being and to apply anything that we may hereafter receive on that account to Sinking Fund, the debt, on the Chancellor's figures, will amount on March 31st (if the war goes on till that date) to £7672 millions. Even if the war went on for six months more it ought not to bring the debt up to more than £9000 millions at the outside. It is quite true, as Mr Hoare says, that the return to peace conditions will be a gradual process, and that expenditure will not come back to a peace basis all at once. Demobilisation and other matters which were left, by our cheery Chancellor, out of the airy after-war balance-sheet that he so light-heartedly constructed, may cost £1000 millions or more before we have done with them. But against them we can set a string of recoverable assets which, in the Chancellor's hands, footed up a total of £1172 millions—balances in agents' hands, due debts (apart from loans to Allies), land, securities, ships, buildings, stores In Munitions Department, arrears of taxation, and so on. With his 11s. 6d. in the pound on unearned and 6s. in the pound on earned incomes, Mr Hoare expects a revenue of £620 millions, "or enough to provide for the interest of the debt with a 1 per cent. Sinking Fund, and leave £20 millions towards the Supply Services." But Mr Bonar Law anticipated a total peace Budget (if the war ended by March 31st next) of £650 millions. This was probably too low, but we may at least hope that Mr Hoare has gone rather further than was necessary to be on the safe side.

In the other article on the subject of post-war debt contributed to the last number of this Journal, an "Ex-M.P." plumped for a somewhat novel variety of the Levy on Capital, in the shape of a Compulsory Loan, bearing no interest and repayable in 100 years. Each individual citizen to be made to subscribe to the extent of 20 per cent. of his possessions. Ten per cent. of the amount due to be paid on application, 10 per cent. six months after allotment, and 80 per cent. on January 1st of the following year. When desired, the Government to advance at 5 per cent. the money necessary for the payment subsequent to allotment, full repayment of such advances to be made within eight years. A Sinking Fund to be established to redeem the loan at maturity. But is there any real advantage in this scheme over the Levy on Capital, from which it only differs by the receipt by the payer of a promise to repay in 100 years' time? The approximate value of £1000 nominal of the Compulsory Loan stock would be, according to "Ex-M.P.'s" calculation, in the year of issue £7 12s., money being worth 5 per cent. and assuming that rate to be current during the remainder of the term. The claim that there is no confiscation, because "a perfectly good security is given for the money received," would seem rather futile to those who paid £1000 and received a security, the present value of which might be below £10. They might very likely think that outright confiscation (since confiscation originally means nothing but "putting into the Treasury") is really a simpler way of dealing with the problem. "Ex-M.P.," however, estimates that the immediate redemption of £2800 millions of debt (which he, rather modestly, expects to be the result of his 20 per cent. levy) would enable the balance of the War Debt to be converted into 3-1/2 per cent. stock. This may be true, but if so it is equally true if a similar or larger amount of debt is cancelled by means of an outright Levy on Capital.

The merits and demerits of a Levy on Capital have already been dealt with in the pages of this Journal "Ex-M.P.," however, brought forward a slightly novel form of argument in its favour. He pointed out that the money constituting the great increase in debt that has taken place during the war will have been, in the main, contributed by people who have worked at home under the protection of the Army and Navy, while the soldiers and sailors have been prevented by the duty which sent them out to risk their lives from subscribing a proportionate share to the National Debt. Hence "a class that deserves most of the State will find itself indebted to a class which—if it does not deserve least of the State—has, at any rate, turned a national emergency to personal profit." This is a strong argument, which, has been used frequently in the course of the war in the pages of the Economist, against borrowing for war purposes to the large extent to which our timid rulers have adopted the policy. "To be really just," the writer continued, "the process of taxation … must be applied with greatest force to those who have accumulated their money since the outbreak of war, and only to a less degree to those whose fortunes have not been built upon their country's necessity. The difficulty of separating these two classes of wealth is great, and must, in the writer's opinion, be effected by separate legislation—legislation which might justly be based upon the increase in post-1913 incomes, a record of which should now be in preparation at Somerset House." Everyone will agree that everything possible should be done to take the burden of the war debt off the shoulders of those who have fought for us; but it is equally clear that now that the mischief of this huge debt has been done, it will be exceedingly difficult to repair it by any ingenuities of this kind. For instance, if the kind of taxation—in the shape of a Compulsory Loan—proposed by "Ex-M.P." were enforced, how can we be sure that it would not take a large slice off capital, the next heir to which is a soldier or a sailor? Bad finance is so much easier to perpetrate than to remedy that one is almost certain to come across such objections as this to any scheme for making the war profiteers "cough up" some of their gains.

Moreover, we have to remember that by no means the whole of the war debt represents the gains of those who "have turned a national emergency to personal profit." Some people whose incomes have been actually decreased by the war, especially when currency depreciation is taken into account, have, in response to the appeals of the War Savings Committee, saved more than they ever saved before by patriotically stinting themselves. And even the savers who have saved out of war profits were so far more patriotic than the war profiteers who did not save but squandered. In all the discussion concerning the Levy on Capital I have not seen any answer (even in Mr Pethick Lawrence's very persuasive little book in its favour) to the three great objections to it (1) that it lets off the squanderer and penalises the saver; (2) that the difficulty, trouble and expense involved by the necessary valuation, and the iniquities and frauds that are almost certain to arise out of it, will be enormous; and (3) that its economic effect may be very serious in discouraging accumulation. "Why should any one save," the unthrifty soul will most naturally ask, "if his savings are liable to have a slice cut out of them by a levy at any time?" The advocates of the Levy, and "Ex-M.P." in his advocacy of a Compulsory Loan for repayment of debt; assume that it can be done once and for all and never again. "Take one-fifth of a man's savings away as an emergency measure not to be repeated, and he will at once endeavour to save it back again." But how will you persuade him that it is an emergency measure not to be repeated? How can you be sure that it is so? I have heard a very distinguished Socialist, discussing in private the beauties of the Levy on Capital, point out that it is the sort of thing which, when once the ice has been broken, can be done again so easily. From the Socialist point of view the Levy on Capital is, of course, a simple means of getting, by repetitions of it at regular intervals, all the means of production into the hands of the State; but would the State make a good use of them?

Another assumption about the Levy on Capital that seems to me to be the merest will o' the wisp is the delusion that the whole saving that it would entail by reducing the debt charge would necessarily and certainly go to the relief of income tax. On this assumption Mr Pethick Lawrence bases his most persuasive appeal to the smaller income-tax payer, by showing that he would be better off after a Levy on Capital than before it, thanks to the reduction in income tax, which is assumed as axiomatically arising in its train. But is this certain or even likely? Is it not much more probable that our Government, finding its post-war Budget greatly lightened by a Levy on Capital or a Compulsory Loan to redeem debt, will think itself free to indulge in extravagance, maintaining a considerable part of the war income tax and wasting it on rash experiments? All these weaknesses, which appear to be inherent alike in the Levy on Capital or in the scheme which gilds the pill by calling it a Compulsory Loan, seem to be ignored or neglected (perhaps because they are unanswerable) by their advocates. On the other hand, there are certain psychological arguments on the other side. If the well-to-do, who would have to pay the Levy or subscribe to the Compulsory Loan, would prefer that system to a high income tax, there is no more to be said. A tax that is popular with the payer, as compared with other modes of shearing his fleece, needs no further recommendation. But, in view of the probability of the experiment, once tried, being shortly and frequently repeated, I Very much doubt whether this is so; as far as I have been able by personal inquiry to test opinion on the point I have found it almost unanimously adverse among those whom the Levy would most seriously affect. If, as is much more likely, the imposition of a Levy created better feeling among the working classes and the returning soldiers and tended to more harmonious co-operation in after-war tasks of reconstruction, it might be worth while to face its evils and its dangers. But here again it is quite probable that if the burden of war debt were clearly and palpably put on the shoulders best able to bear it, that is, on those who are lifted by the gifts of fortune—either in inherited money or unusual brainpower or faculties—by an equitably graded income tax, the effect might be just as good on the minds of those who suspect that the rich have battened throughout the war on exploitation of the poor.

This much at least seems to be agreed by most reasonable people about the debt charge—that it will have to be raised, either by a Levy on Capital or by income tax or some other form of direct taxation, from those who are blessed with a margin. We are not likely to repeat our ancestors' mistake, after the Napoleonic War, of throwing the whole burden on to the general consumer by indirect taxation of necessaries and of articles of general consumption. Even Tariff "Reformers" say little about the revenue that their fiscal schemes would bring in. And with good reason. For in so far as they secured Protection they would bring in no revenue; we cannot at once keep out foreign goods and tax them; and any revenue that they brought in would be most expensively raised, because a large part of the extra price paid by the consumer would go not to the State but into the pockets of the home producer. Nor is it likely that any of the many schemes—of which Mr Stilwell's "Great Plan, How to Pay for the War," is a particularly bold example—for paying off debt by a huge issue of inconvertible currency, will achieve any practical result. Not only would they defraud the debt-holder by paying him off in currency enormously depreciated by the multiplication of it that would be involved; but they would also, by that depreciation, throw the burden of the debt on the shoulders of the general consumer through a further disastrous rise in prices, and so would accentuate the bitterness and discontent already rife owing to the war-time dearness and all the suspicions of profiteering and exploitation that it has engendered.

After all, this problem of the war debt, in so far as it is held at home, is not one that ought to terrify us if we look at it steadily. People talk and write as if when the war is over the business of paying for it will begin. That is not really so. The war has been paid for as it went on, and, except in so far as it has been financed by borrowing abroad, it has been paid for by us as a nation. Whatever we have used for the war we have paid for as it went on, partly with the help of loans from America and from other countries—Argentina, Holland, Switzerland, etc.—that have lent us money. These loans amount, as far as they can be traced from the official figures, to about £1300 millions. Against them we can set our loans to our Dominions, over £200 millions (a perfectly good asset), and our loans to our Allies, perhaps £1500 millions, which the Chancellor proposes to write down by 50 per cent., and might perhaps treat still more drastically. To meet this foreign debt we shall have to turn out so much stuff—goods and services of all kinds—for sale abroad to meet the interest and repayment. We have further impoverished ourselves by selling our foreign securities abroad No figure has been published giving any clue to the amount of these sales, and we may perhaps guess them at £1000 millions. If the pre-war estimates of our overseas investments at £4000 millions were anywhere near the mark. It thus appears that we shall end the war still a great creditor nation.

In so far as the debt was raised at home, the war was paid for by those who bought the securities offered, and we have now to pay them interest and set about repaying them the capital. This process will not diminish the national wealth, but will only affect its distribution. It will not diminish the amount of available capital, but may even rather increase it by gathering into the hands of the debt-holders—who are ex-hypothesi folk with an inclination for saving—money that might, if left in the hands of those from whom it is collected, have been squandered. The payment of the debt charge merely means that those who came forward with their money when they were asked to subscribe to war loans, have, according to the extent of the effort that they then made, a set-off against the subsequent taxation involved by the war debt. It would have been a much simpler and more businesslike proceeding to have taken, instead of borrowing, a much larger proportion of the war's cost during the war; but it is too late now to rub in this platitude which is now pretty generally admitted. Mr Hoare showed in last month's Journal that the creation of the War Debt has caused a huge addition to what he has called Rente—the gross income of the propertied classes; and there is much logic in his contention that this income is the source from which the debt charge should be met. At the same time both justice and economic expediency seem to demand that his wider interpretation of Rente, to make it include the earnings of those whose special qualifications (or, we may add, special luck) put them in a position to earn more easily than the struggling majority, should be applied to taxation involved by the debt charge.

How, then, shall we deal with the debt? In the first place we want a good Sinking Fund—1 per cent. at least—and all realisations of assets in the shape of loans repaid, ships, etc., sold, should be used for reduction of our foreign debt. For the home charge we want a special form of income tax that will fall as lightly and indirectly as possible on industry; that is, that it should be imposed on the individual taxpayer direct. So that what we want is an extended, reformed and better graduated form of the super-tax brought down so low that every one who is not merely rich but comfortable should pay his share, For example, any single man or woman with any excess over £500 a year of unearned income, or over £800 a year of earned income might well pay super-tax on that excess. The exemption limit might well be raised by 50 per cent. for married couples (if their joint incomes are still to be counted as one), and by £100 a year for each child between the age of five and twenty-five. But all these figures are mere suggestions, and the details of the scheme would have to be worked out by Inland Revenue officials, whose experience and knowledge of the practical working of such matters qualifies them for the task. The broad principle is a special tax for the debt charge to be raised direct from individual incomes with skilful differentiation, according to the circumstances of the taxpayer, in the matter of the number of his dependants, and also according to the source of the income, whether it is being earned by exertions which illness might terminate or received from invested funds, and therefore beyond the reach of the "slings and arrows of outrageous fortune." That portion of the tax that is required for Sinking Fund might be made payable, at the option of the taxpayer, in Government securities at prices giving some advantage to the holder. This form of special debt-charge super-tax would enable the ordinary income tax to be reduced considerably at once. Mr Edward Lees, secretary to the Manchester and County Bank, has put forward a scheme by which taxpayers can buy in advance immunity for so many years from so much annual income tax. If this suggestion could be worked it might provide a means of quickening the debt's repayment, though it looks rather like exchanging one form of debt for another. But, in any case, it is urgent that the long promised reform of income tax should be set in hand at once, so that it may be purged of its present inequities and anomalies and set to work in peace to redeem debt on a new and more scientific basis.