Equalitarianism

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22492, 29 August 1938, Page 10

Equalitarianism

The Government will have to make up its mind whether it is, or is not, pursuing an equalitarian philosophy. The Social Security Bill has produced some bold declarations for redistribution q£ incomes and an even share for all. The Minister* for Lands, for example, announced that the income of the country could be “ what “ the people like to make it.” There is no limit, only the problem of “ adjusting the real “ value of different groups of goods within the “ community, so that there is uniformity of “ values for services rendered by the people in “ various groups.” What Mr Langstohe was struggling to say was that the only problem:is to find how to equate the community value and reward of/hewing coal, managing the coal mine, keeping the accounts, distributing the coal, sweeping the coal-spoted chimneys, carrying out research on coal, and inventing processes for the use of coal by-products. If Mr Langstone thinks this an easy problem, he has something yet to learn. But at least he simplified his meaning when he said, without any rigmarole, “Income must be spread evenly through ‘I the community." Mr J. A. Lee spoke later in the debate and took a similar view. He praised the bill, less as a vehicle to bring “benefits” than as “an instrument for the re- “ distribution of the national wealth.” This is old-fashioned thinking for a left-winger of the Labour Party; The redistributive theory of taxation has been badly blown upon in the last 10 or 20 years. But what is more amusing is the evident conflict or muddle of thought in the Labour Party v Only a few days ago one of Mr

Lee’s leaded vigorously denied that the Government believed in, or was pursuing, a “ Robin Hood ” tax policy, which is precisely what redistributive taxation is. Again, at the end of March the Prime Minister most earner Jy assured a deputation of university graduates that it was “ only right that those who best “ equipped themselves for efficient and responsible positions should be encouraged and “ adequately rewarded.” If he did not mean that they were to be specially well-rewarded, other parts of his speech were meaningless. But Mr Parry could not have been present, or could not have taken any notice, or must have bottled up his disagreement. At any rate, it was sharp disagreement that came out last week. It is true that Mr Savage, on this occasion in March, suddenly remembered the voters at his back and their susceptibilities. He added, therefore, that the principle applied all round, to hewers of wood as well as to economists, and to drawers of water as well as newspaper editors. “ After all,” he said, “ the blacksmith or the bricklayer is as essential as the “ banker. It is the service each worker gives “ that counts in the sum of things.” And if that meant that it counts equally and should be equally rewarded, the Prime Minister was contradicting himself; but if he meant still that it counts according to its quality and the demand for it and should be rewarded accordingly, he was only putting himself in position to be knocked down by his Minister for Lands. It takes a long time to find out what the Socialists believe and want. If they are not contradicting themselves, they are contradicting each other.