It is easy, as they say on the Stock Exchange, to job backwards, and it is also easy, and perhaps rather unprofitable, to hazard opinions about what would have happened if things had been otherwise.
Nevertheless, when we look back on the spirit of the country as it was in those early days of the war, when the violation of Belgium had sent a chivalrous thrill through the hearts of all cla.s.ses in the country, when we all recognised that we were faced with the greatest crisis in our history, that our country and the future of civilisation were about to be tested by the severest strain ever applied to them, that the life and fortune of the individual did not count, but that the war and victory were the only interests that any one had a right to consider--when one remembers all these things, and the use that a wise financial policy might have made of them, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the history of the war in this country and its social and political effects might have been something much finer, much cleaner and more n.o.ble if only the weapons of finance had been more boldly and wisely used. It is not a good thing to indulge in high-falutin" on this subject. It is absurd to suppose that the war suddenly turned us all into plaster saints at the beginning, and that we might have continued so to the end if the State had dealt with our money in a proper way. But without setting up any such idealistic arguments as these, looking back on those early days of the war, one can still remember the thrill of earnestness and of eagerness for self-sacrifice which has since then given way lamentably to war profiteering, war strikes, and a general struggle among many cla.s.ses of the community to make as much as possible out of the war, merely because our financial leaders have never really put the country"s financial problem properly before the country.
We were not plaster saints, but we were either Idealistic and perhaps foolish people who attached great importance to the freedom and security of small nations and all those items in the programme of idealistic Radicalism, or else we were good, red-hot, true-blue Jingoes with a hearty hatred for Germany, and enjoyed the thought that the big fight which we had long foreseen between the two countries was at last going to be fought out. Or, again, we were just commonplace people who did not much believe in idealistic Radicalism or anti-German bitterness, but saw that the whole future of our country was at stake, and were prepared to do anything for it. A fine example was set us in those days by the Trade Union leaders. The industrial world was seething with discontent. The Suffragettes in London and the Carsonites in Ireland had shown us how much could be done by appeals to physical force in a lazy-minded community; and hints of industrial revolution, with great organised strikes, which were going to tie up the transport industry of the country were in the air. And then, when the war came, the Labour leaders said, "No strikes until the war is over. Our country comes first."
This was the lead given to the country by those down at the bottom, who had the least to lose, and whose patriotism during the course of the war has frequently been questioned. At the top the financial and property-owning cla.s.ses, having been saved by Mr Lloyd George"s able adroitness from a bad crisis in the City, were entirely tame, and would have suffered anything in the way of taxation or financial conscription if the need for it had been properly put before them.
It is almost amusing to remember now that in those early days of the war the shareholders in Home Railway companies were thought lucky. The Government were taking the railways over, and were guaranteeing that their proprietors should receive the same dividends as they had had before the war. Such was the view in financial and property-owning circles of results of war that, so far from any expectation of the huge profits which war has put into the pockets of certain cla.s.ses, they were only too thankful if they could be a.s.sured that their gross incomes were not going to be reduced.
Such was the spirit with which the Government of that day had to deal. A spirit in all cla.s.ses earnestly patriotic, and so thoroughly frightened of the economic consequences of the war that it would have been ready to face any sacrifices that the Government had asked of it.
How, then, would the Government have dealt with this spirit if it had taken the trouble really to think out the problem of war finance on a long view instead of proceeding along a haphazard line, adjusting peace methods to war without any consideration as to their adequacy?
If the problem had been really thought out beforehand the Government must have seen clearly that the real economic problem in war-time is not merely a question of raising money, since that can at any time be done easily by means of a printing-press, but of diverting the industrial energy of the nation from peace to war purposes, that is to say, transferring from the enjoyment of the individual citizen the goods and services that used to contribute to his comfort and amus.e.m.e.nt, and turning them over to the provision of the things needed for the war. War"s needs can only be met out of the current production of the world as it is at present. All the warring powers begin a war with certain acc.u.mulated war stores consisting of battleships, ammunition, guns and all other forms of war material. Apart from these stores with which they begin, the whole work of providing the armies with the fighting materials that they require, and the food and clothes that they consume, has to be done during the course of the war, that is to say, out of the current production of the moment.
Therefore the real economic problem that any Government has to face in war-time is that of inducing its citizens to reduce their purchase of goods and services, that is to say, to spend less, so that all the things required for the Army and Navy may be obtained by the Government. It is true that some of the goods and services required for carrying on war can be obtained from foreign countries by any belligerent which is able to communicate with them freely. In that case the current production of the foreigner can be called in to help.
But this can only be done if the warring country is able to ship goods to the foreigner in payment for what it buys, or if it is able to obtain a loan from the foreigner, or some other foreign country, in order to pay for its purchases abroad, or again, if, as in our case, it holds a large acc.u.mulation of securities which foreign countries are prepared to take in exchange for goods that they send for the purposes of the war. By these two last-named processes, raising money abroad, and selling securities to foreign nations, the warring country impoverishes itself for the future. When it borrows abroad it pledges itself to export goods and services in future to meet interest and sinking fund on the money so raised, so getting no goods and services in return. When it ships its acc.u.mulated wealth in the form of securities it gives up for the future any claim to goods and services from the debtor country which used to come to it to meet interest and redemption. It is only by shipping goods in return for goods imported for the war that a country can keep its financial staying-power on an even keel.
Thus the problem which a statesman who had thought out the economics of war beforehand would have recognised as the keystone of his policy, would have been that of diverting the activities of the country from providing itself with comforts and amus.e.m.e.nts to turning out goods required for war, and of doing so with the least possible friction, the least possible alteration in the economic equilibrium of the country, and, above all, with the least possible cost to the national finances. We arrive at the true aspect of this problem more easily if we leave out the question of money altogether and think of it in units of energy. When a nation goes to war it means to say that it has to apply so many units of energy to the business of fighting, and to provide the fighters with all that they need. If at the beginning of the war its utmost capacity of output was, to mention merely a fanciful figure, a thousand million units of energy, and if it was clear that the fighting forces of the country would need for their proper maintenance five hundred million units of energy, then it is clear that the nation"s ordinary consumption of goods and services would have to be reduced to the extent of five hundred millions of units of energy, which would have to be applied to the war, that is, a.s.suming that its possible output remained the same.
In other words, the spending power of the citizens of the country had to be reduced so that the industrial energy that used to go into meeting their wants might be made available for the purposes of fighting forces. Now what was the straightest, simplest and cleanest way of bringing about this reduction in buying power on the part of the ordinary citizen which has been shown to be necessary for the purposes of war finance? Clearly the best way of doing it is by taxation equitably imposed. When the State taxes, it says in effect to the citizens, "Your country needs certain goods and services, you therefore will have to go without those goods and services, and the simplest way to make you do this is to take away your money and so ration your buying power. Whatever is needed for the Army and Navy will be taken away from you by taxation, and the result of this will be that, instead of your indulging in comforts and luxuries, to the extent of the war"s needs the Government will use your money for paying for what is needed for the Army and Navy."
If such a policy had been carried out the cost of the war to the community would have been enormously cheapened. There need have been no general rise in prices because there would have been no increase in demand for goods and services. Anything that the Government spent would have been counter-balanced by decreased spending by the individual; any work that the Government needed for the war would have been counter-balanced by a reduction in demand for work on the part of individual citizens. There would have been no multiplication of currency owing to enormous credits raised by the Government; there would have been merely a transfer of buying power from individuals to the State. The process would have been gradual, there need have been no acute dislocation, but as the cost of the war increased, that is to say, as the Government needed more and more goods and services for its prosecution, the community would gradually have shed one after another the extravagances on which it spent so many hundreds of millions in days before the war. As it shed these extravagances the labour and energy needed to produce them would have been automatically transferred to the service of the war, or to the production of necessaries of life. By this simple process of monetary rationing all the frantic appeals for economy, and most of the complicated, tangled problems raised by such matters as Food Control or National Service would have been avoided.
But, it may be contended, this is setting up an ideal so absurdly too high that you cannot expect any modern nation to rise up to it.
Perhaps this is true, though I am not at all sure that if we had had a really bold and far-sighted Finance Minister at the beginning of the war he might not have persuaded the nation to tackle its war problem on this exalted line. At least it can be claimed that our financial rulers might have looked into the history of the matter and seen what our ancestors had done in big wars in this matter of paying for war costs out of taxation, with the determination to do at least as well as they did, and perhaps rather better, owing to the overwhelming scale of modern financial problems. If they had done so they would have found that both in the Napoleonic and the Crimean wars we paid for nearly half the cost of the war out of revenue as they went on, whereas in the present war the proportion that we are paying by taxation, instead of being 47 per cent., as it was when our st.u.r.dy ancestors fought against Napoleon, is less than 20 per cent.[1]
Why has this been so? Partly, no doubt, owing to the slackness and cowardice of our politicians, and the apathy of the overworked officials, who have been too busy with the details of finance to think the problem out on a large scale. But it is chiefly, I think, because our system of taxation, though probably the best in the world, involves so many inequities that it cannot be applied on a really large scale without producing a discontent which might have had serious consequences on our conduct of the war.
[Footnote 1: See _Economist_, August 4, 1917, p. 151.]
It is not possible nowadays, now that the working cla.s.ses are conscious of their strength, to apply taxation to ordinary articles of general consumption with anything like the ruthlessness which in former days produced such widespread misery. Indirect taxation of this kind carries with it this inherent weakness that its burden falls most heavily on those who are least able to bear it, consequently it is bound to break in the hand of those who attempt to apply it with anything like vigour to a community which is prepared to stand up for fair treatment. A tax on bread or salt obviously hits the wage-earner at 30s. a week infinitely harder than it hits the millionaire, and so the country would not tolerate taxes on bread or salt. Direct taxes, such as Income Tax and Death Duties, have this enormous advantage, that they can really be regulated so as to press with continually increasing severity upon those who are best able to bear them.
Unfortunately our Income Tax is still so unjustly imposed that it was clearly impossible to make full use of it without its being first reformed. That two men, each earning 1000 a year, should pay the same Income Tax, in spite of one having a wife and five children, while the other is a careless bachelor, is such a blot upon this otherwise excellent tax that it is generally agreed that the present rate of 5s.
is as high as it can be made to go unless some reform is introduced into its incidence. The need for its reform is made the excuse for a sparing use of the tax, and we have been on several occasions a.s.sured that, as soon as the war is over, this reform will be set about.
In the meantime the Government falls back on funding about 80 per cent. of its requirements of the war on a system of borrowing. In so far as the money subscribed to its loans is money that is being genuinely saved by investors this process has exactly the same effect as taxation, that is to say, somebody goes without goods and services and hands over his power to buy them to the State to be used for the war. Borrowing of this kind consequently does everything that is needed for the solution of the immediate war problem, and the only objection to it is that it leaves later on the difficulties involved by raising taxes when the war is over, and economic problems are much more complicated in times of peace than in war, for meeting the interest and redemption of debt. But, in fact, it is well known that by no means all that the Government has borrowed for war purposes has been provided in this way. Much of the money that the Government has obtained for war purposes has been got not out of genuine savings of investors, but by arrangements of various kinds with the banking machinery of the country, or by the simple use of the printing-press, with the result that the Government has provided itself with an enormous ma.s.s of new currency which has not been taken out of anybody else"s pocket, but has been manufactured by or for the Government.
The consequence of the profligate use of this dishonest process is that general rise in prices, which is in effect an indirect tax on the necessaries of life, involving all the injustice and ill-feeling which arises from such a measure. It is inevitable that the working cla.s.ses, finding themselves subjected to a rise in prices, the cause of which they do not understand, but the result of which they see to be a great decrease in the buying power of their wages, should believe that they are being exploited by profiteers, that the rich cla.s.ses are growing richer at their expense out of the war, and that they and the country are being bled by a set of unpatriotic capitalist blood-suckers. It is also natural that the property-owning cla.s.ses, who find themselves paying an Income Tax which they regard as extortionate, should consider that the working cla.s.ses by their continuous demands for higher wages to meet higher cost of living, are trying to exploit the country in their own interests in a time of national crisis, and displaying a most unedifying spirit. The social result of this evil policy of inflation, in embittering cla.s.s against cla.s.s, is a matter which it is difficult to exaggerate. Some people think that it was inevitable. This is too wide a question to be entered into now, but at least it must be contended that if it is inevitable the extent to which it is being practised might have been very greatly diminished.
Do we mean to go on to the end of the war with this muddling policy of bad finance? If we still insist on believing that the war cannot last another six months, and there is therefore no need to pull ourselves up short financially and put things in order, then we certainly shall do so. But we should surely recognise that there is at least a chance that the war may go on for years, that if so our present financial methods will leave us with a burden of debt which is appalling to consider, and that in any case, whether the war lasts another six months or another six years, a reform of our financial methods is long overdue, is inevitable some time, and will pay us better the sooner it is set about.
IV
WAR FINANCE AS IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN--II
_December_, 1917
The Changed Spirit of the Country--A Great Opportunity thrown away--What Taxation might have done--The Perils of Inflation--Drifting stupidly along the Line of Least Resistance--It is we who pay, not "Posterity."
In the November number of _Sperling"s Journal_ I dealt with the question of how our war finance might have been improved if a longer view had been taken from the beginning concerning the length of the war and the measures that would be necessary for raising the money.
The subject was too big to be fully covered in the course of one article, and I have been given this opportunity of continuing its examination. Before doing so I wish to remind my readers once more of the great difference in the spirit of the country with regard to financial self-sacrifice in the early days of the war and at the present time, after three years of high profits, public and private extravagance, and successful demands for higher wages have demoralised the public temper into a belief that war is a time for making big profits and earning big wages at the expense of the community. In the early days the spirit of the country was very different, and it might have remained so if it had been trained by the use made of public finance along the right line. In the early days the Labour leaders announced that there were to be no strikes during the war, and the property-owning cla.s.ses, with their hearts full of grat.i.tude for the prompt.i.tude with which Mr Lloyd George had met the early war crisis, were ready to do anything that the country asked from them in the matter of monetary sacrifice. Mr Asquith"s grandiloquent phrase, "No price is too high when Honour is at stake," might then have been taken literally by all cla.s.ses of the community as a call to them to do their financial duty. Now it has been largely translated into a belief that no price is too high to exact from the Government by those who have goods to sell to it, or work to place at its disposal. In considering what might have been in matters of finance we have to be very careful to remember this evil change which has taken place in the public spirit owing to the short-sighted financial measures which have been taken by our rulers.
Thus, when we consider how our war finance might have been improved, we imply all along that the improvements suggested should have been begun when the war was in its early stages, and when public opinion was still ready to do its duty in finance. The conclusion at which we arrived a month ago was that by taxation rather than by borrowing and inflation much more satisfactory results could have been got out of the country. If, instead of manufacturing currency for the prosecution of the war, the Government had taken money from the citizens either by taxation or by loans raised exclusively out of real savings, the rise in prices which has made the war so terribly costly, and has raised so great a danger through the unrest and dissatisfaction of the working cla.s.ses, might have been to a great extent avoided, and the higher the rate of taxation had been, and the less the amount provided by loans, the less would have been the seriousness of the problem that now awaits us when the war is over and we have to face the question of the redemption of the debt.
In this matter of taxation we have certainly done much more than any of the countries who are fighting either with us or against us.
Germany set the example at the beginning of the war of raising no money at all by taxation, puffed up with the vain belief that the cost of the war, and a good deal more, was going to be handed over to her in the shape of indemnities by her vanquished enemies. This terrible miscalculation on her part led her to set a very bad example to the warring Powers, and when protests are made in this country concerning the low proportion of the war"s costs that is being met out of taxation it is easy for the official apologist to answer, "See how much more we are doing than Germany." It is easy, but it is not a good answer. Germany had no financial prestige to maintain; the money that Germany is raising for financing the war is raised almost entirely at home, and she rejoices in a population so entirely tame under a dominant caste that it would very likely be quite easy for her, when, the war is over, to cancel a large part of the debt by some process of financial jugglery, and to induce her tame and deluded creditors to believe that they have been quite handsomely treated.
Here, however, in England, we have a financial prestige which is based upon financial leadership of more than a century. We have also raised a large part of the money we have used for the prosecution of the war by borrowing abroad, and so we have to be specially careful in husbanding that credit, which is so strong a weapon on the side of liberty and justice. And, further, we have a public which thinks for itself, and will be highly sceptical, and is already inclined to be sceptical, concerning the manner in which the Government may treat the national creditors. Its tendency to think for itself in matters of finance is accompanied by very gross ignorance, which very often induces it to think quite wrongly; and when we find it necessary for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make it clear at a succession of public meetings that those who subscribe to War Loans need have no fear that their property in them will be treated worse than any other kinds of property, we see what evil results the process of too much borrowing and too little taxation can have in a community which is acutely suspicious and distrustful of its Government, and very liable to ignorant blundering on financial subjects.
What, then, might have been done if, at the beginning of the war, a really courageous Government, with some power of foreseeing the needs of finance for several years ahead if the war lasted, had made a right appeal to a people which was at that time ready to do all that was asked from it for the cause of justice against the common foe? The problem by which the Government was faced was this, that it had to acquire for the war an enormous and growing amount of goods and services required by our fighting forces, some of which could only be got from abroad, and some could only be produced at home, while at the same time it had to maintain the civilian population with such a supply of the necessaries of life as would maintain them in efficiency for doing the work at home which was required to support the effort of our fighters at the Front. With regard to the goods which came from abroad, either for war purposes or for the maintenance of the civilian population, the Government obviously had no choice about the manner in which payment had to be made. It had no power to tax the suppliers in foreign countries of the goods and services that we needed during the war period. It consequently could only induce them to supply these goods and services by selling them either commodities produced by our own industry, or securities held by our capitalists, or its own promises to pay.
With regard to the goods that we might have available for export, these were likely to be curtailed owing to the diversion of a large number of our industrial population into the ranks of the Army and into munition factories. This curtailment, on the other hand, might to a certain extent be made good by a reduction in consumption on the part of the civilian population, so setting free a larger proportion of our manufacturing energy for the production of goods for export.
Otherwise the problem of paying for goods purchased from abroad could only be solved by the export of securities, and by borrowing from foreign countries, so that the sh.e.l.ls and other war material that were required, for example, from America, might be paid for by American investors in consideration of receiving from us a promise to pay them back some day, and to pay them interest in the meantime. In other words, we could only pay for what we needed from abroad by shipping goods or securities. As is well known, we have financed the war by these methods to an enormous extent; the actual extent to which we have done so is not known, but it is believed that we have roughly balanced by this process the sums that we have lent to our Allies and Dominions, which now amount to well over 1300 millions.
If this is so, we have, in fact, financed the whole of the real cost of the war to ourselves at home, and we have done so by taxation, by borrowing saved money, and by inflation--that is to say, by the manufacture of new currency, with the inevitable result of depreciating the buying power of our existing currency as a whole. How much better could the thing have been done? In other words, how much of the war"s cost in so far as it was raised at home could have been raised by taxation? In theory the answer is very simple, for in theory the whole cost of the war, in so far as it is raised at home, could have been raised by taxation if it could have been raised at all.
It is not possible to raise more by any other method than it is theoretically possible to raise by taxation. It is often said, "All this preaching about taxation is all very well, but you couldn"t possibly get anything like the amount that is needed for the war by taxation, or even by borrowing of saved money. This inflation against which economic theorists are continually railing is inevitable in time of war because there isn"t enough money in the country to provide all that is needed."
This argument is simply the embodiment of the old delusion, so common among people who handle the machinery of finance, that you can really increase the supply of necessary goods by increasing the supply of money, which is nothing else than claims to goods expressed either in pieces of metal or pieces of paper. As we have seen, all that we have been able to raise abroad has been required for advances to our Allies and Dominions, consequently we have had to fall back upon our own home production for everything needed for our own war costs. Either we have turned out the goods at home or we have turned out goods to sell to foreigners in exchange for goods that we require from them. But since we thus had to rely on home production for the whole of the war"s needs as far as we were concerned, it is clear that the Government could, if it had been gifted with ideal courage and devotion, and if it had a people behind it ready to do all that was needed for victory, have taken the whole of the home production, except what was wanted for maintaining the civilian population in efficiency, for the purposes of the war.
It is a commonplace of political theory that the Government has a right to take the whole of the property and the whole of the labour of its citizens. But it would not, of course, have been possible for the Government immediately to inaugurate a policy of setting everybody to work on things required for the war and paying them all a maintenance wage. This might have been done in theory, but in practice it would have involved questions of industrial conscription, which would probably have raised a storm of difficulty. What the Government might have done would have been by commandeering the buying power of the citizen to have set free the whole industrial energy of the community for supplying the war"s needs and the necessaries of life. At present the national output, which is only another way of expressing the national income, is produced from certain channels of production in response to the expectation of demand from those whose possession of claims to goods, that is to say, money, gives them the right to say what kind of goods they will consume, and consequently the industrial part of the population will produce.
Had the Government laid down that the whole cost of the war was to be borne by taxation, the effect of this measure would have been that everything which was needed for the war would have been placed at the disposal of the Government by a reduction in spending on the part of those who have the spending power. In other words, the only process required would have been the readjustment of industrial output from the production of goods needed (or thought to be needed) for ordinary individuals to those required for war purposes. This readjustment would have gone on gradually as the war"s cost increased. There would have been no compet.i.tion between the Government and private individuals for a limited amount of goods in a restricted market, which has had such a disastrous effect on prices during the course of the war; there would have been no manufacture of new currency, which means the creation of new buying power at a time when there are less goods to buy, which has had an equally fatal effect on prices; there would have had to be a very drastic reform in our system of taxation, by which the income tax, the only really equitable engine by which the Government can get much money out of us, would have been reformed so as to have borne less hardly upon those with families to bring up.
Mr Sidney Webb and the Fabians have advocated a system by which the basis of a.s.sessment 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 acc.u.mulation would have been brought about. By this means the whole of the nation"s buying power among the richer cla.s.ses 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 cla.s.ses 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 compet.i.tion, it secures for itself what is needed for the war. There is thus throughout the country this unwholesome process of compet.i.tion 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 cla.s.ses 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 debas.e.m.e.nt, 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 cla.s.ses 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 Att.i.tude 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.