Mr Sidney Webb and the Fabians have advocated a system by which the basis of assessment for income tax should be the income divided by the number of members of a family, rather than the mere income without any consideration for the number of people that have to be provided for out of it. With some such scheme as this adopted there is no reason why the Government should not have taken, for example, the whole of all incomes above £1000 a year for each individual, due allowance being made for obligations, such as rent, which involve long contracts. For any single individual to want to spend more than £1000 a year on himself or herself at such a crisis would have been recognised, in the early days of the war, as an absurdity; any surplus above that line might readily have been handed over to the Government, half of it perhaps in taxation and the other half in the form of a forced loan.
So sweeping a change would not have been necessary at first, perhaps not at all, because the war's cost would not have grown nearly so rapidly. All surplus income above a certain line would have been taken for the time being, but with the promise to repay half the amount taken, so that it should not be made a disadvantage to be rich, and no discouragement to accumulation would have been brought about. By this means the whole of the nation's buying power among the richer classes would have been concentrated upon the war, with the result that the private extravagance, which is still disgracing us in the fourth year of the war, would not have been allowed to produce its evil effects. With the rich thus drastically taxed, the working classes would have been much less restive under the application of income tax to their own wages. We should have a much more freely supplied labour market, and since the rise in prices would not have been nearly so severe, labour's claim to higher wages would have been much less equitable, and labour's power to enforce the claim would have been much less irresistible.
What the Government has actually done has been to do a little bit of taxation, much more than anybody else, but still a little bit when compared with the total cost of the war; a great deal of borrowing, and a great deal of inflation. By this last-named method it produces the result required, that of diverting to itself a large part of the industrial output of the country, by the very worst possible means. It still, by its failure to tax, leaves buying power in the hands of a large number of people who see no reason why they should not live very much as usual; that is to say, why they should not demand for their own purposes a proportion of the nation's energy which they have no real right to require at such a time of crisis. But in order to check their demands, and to provide its own needs, the Government, by setting the bankers to work to provide it with book credits, gives itself an enormous amount of new buying power with which, by the process of competition, it secures for itself what is needed for the war. There is thus throughout the country this unwholesome process of competition between the Government on one hand and unpatriotic spenders on the other, who, between them, put up prices against the Government and against all those unfortunate, defenceless people who, being in possession of fixed salaries, or of fixed incomes, have no remedy against rising prices and rising taxation. All that could possibly have been spent on the war in this country was the total income of the people, less what was required for maintaining the people in health and efficiency. That total income Government might, in theory, have taken. If it had done so it could and would have paid for the whole of the war out of taxation.
All this, I shall be told, is much too theoretical and idealistic; these things could not have been done in practice. Perhaps not, though it is by no means certain, when we look back on the very different temper that ruled In the country in the early months of the war. If anything of the kind could have been done it would certainly have been a practical proof of determination for the war which would have shown more clearly than anything else that "no price was too high when Honour was at stake." It would also have been an extraordinary demonstration to the working classes of the sacrifices that property owners were ready to make, the result of which might have been that the fine spirit shown at the beginning of the war might have been maintained until the end, instead of degenerating into a series of demands for higher wages, each one of which, as conceded to one set of workmen, only stimulates another to demand the same. But even if we grant that it is only theoretically possible to have performed such a feat as is outlined above, there is surely no question that much more might have been done than has been done in the matter of paying for the war by taxation. If we are reminded once more that our ancestors paid nearly half the cost of the Napoleonic war out of revenue, while we are paying about a fifth of the cost of the present war from the same source, it is easy to see that a much greater effort might have been made in view of the very much greater wealth of the country at the present time. I was going to have added, in view also of its greater economic enlightenment, but I feel that after the experience of the present war, and its financing by currency debasement, the less about economic enlightenment the better.
What, then, stood in the way of measures of finance which would have obviously had results so much more desirable than those which will face us at the end of the war? As it is, the nation, with all classes embittered owing to suspicions of profiteering on the part of the employers and of unpatriotic strikes on the part of the workers, will have to face a load of debt, the service of which is already roughly equivalent to our total pre-war revenue; while there seems every prospect that the war may continue for many half-years yet, and every half-year, as it is at present financed, leaves us with a load of debt which will require the total yield of the income tax and the super-tax before the war to meet the charge upon it. Why have we allowed our present finance to go so wrong? In the first place, perhaps, we may put the bad example of Germany. Then, surely, our rulers might have known better than to have been deluded by such an example. In the second place, it was the cowardice of the politicians, who had not the sense in the early days of the war to see how eager the spirit of the country was to do all that the war required of it, and consequently were afraid to tax at a time when higher taxation would have been submitted to most cheerfully by the country. There was also the absurd weakness of our Finance Ministers and our leading financial officials, which allowed our financial machinery to be so much weakened by the demands of the War Office for enlistment that it has been said in the House of Commons by several Chancellors of the Exchequer that it is quite impossible to consider any form of new taxation because the machinery could not undertake it. There has also been great short-sightedness on the part of the business men of the country, who have failed to give the Government a lead in this important matter. Like the Government, they have taken short views, always hoping that the war might soon be over, and so have left the country with a problem that grows steadily more serious with each half-year as we drift stupidly along the line of least resistance.
Such war finance as I have outlined—drastic and impracticable as it seems—would have paid us. Taxation in war-time, when industry's problem is simplified by the Government's demand for its product, hurts much less than in peace, when industry has not only to turn out the stuff, but also find a buyer—often a more difficult and expensive problem. There is a general belief that by paying for war by loans we hand the business of paying for it on to posterity. In fact, we can no more make posterity pay us back our money than we can carry on war with goods that posterity will produce. Whatever posterity produces it will consume. Whatever it pays in interest and amortisation of our war debt, it will pay to itself. We cannot get a farthing out of posterity. All we can do, by leaving it a debt charge, is to affect the distribution of its wealth among its members. Each loan that we raise makes us taxpayers collectively poorer now, to the extent of the capital value of the charge on our incomes that it involves. The less we thus charge our productive power, and the more we pay up in taxes as the war goes on, the readier we shall be to play a leading part in the great time of reconstruction.
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.