SOCIALISM.

Auckland Star, Volume XLII, Issue 55, 6 March 1911, Page 7

SOCIALISM.

(To the Editor) Sir, —(Having read an article on Socialism, written, doubtless, to inspire readers with a dislike for things communistic, 1 noticed the writer allowed that, if the aggregate of the yearly incomes received by the population of the United Kingdom be divided by the number of inhabitants, the amount receivable iby each individual would fall not far short of £36 per annum. Such a statement is a brief for Socialism, though I fail to see how such a monetary result would pan out. The question, to my mind, for Socialists to answer is, what would the incomes aggregate under a commune? Take, for instance, the London estates of Grosvenor, Portland, and Westminster, the rents from these properties run into hundreds of thousands, but what would the yearly income be worth under Socialism? Again, take the case of a chef at the "Rag" or the "Ritz," now paid a salary of over £1,000 per annum. Under a commune such incomes would cease to exist, for the reason that society and military clubs, also hotels de luxe, would be thinge of the past. As a matter of fact, incomes under Socialism would have to start from bed-rock—that is from the rural value of mother earth, based upon her agricultural value.

'Socialists cannot expect to eat cakes and have them. Overwhelm the mountain and a very small mouse remains; kill the goose and whew are the golden eggs?

In the United Kingdom, the capital assessed to the death duties during, the past 10 yeare amounted to £2,760,559,000, divide this by ten and the yearly income derived Irom the quotient, at four per cent, amounts to £11,040,000, but Socialism would, to a great extent, destroy this income-producing factor. The gross income of Great Britain now exceeds f 1,000,000,000 per annum, •£52,000,000 of this was from ownership of land. Socialism- would strike out the item —again, ownership of houses, £217,000,000; business concerns and professions, £566,000,000, would meet their debacle through Socialism. It goes without saying that the salaries of Government officials under a bureaucratic socialistic regime, -would chow an. increase, but the general trend would be to dull, damnable, mediocrity.—(l am, etc., i - • H.J.