EQUALITY OF SACRIFICE

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3146, 26 July 1917, Page 6

EQUALITY OF SACRIFICE

Sir,—l have read with .much interest Mr. vou Haast's two letters on the subject of the distribution of the sacrifices of war by means of the "general average" principle. There is one point on which I am in thorough agreement with Mr."'von ilaast, and that is that the men who, whether voluntarily or compulsorily, offer their lives for civilisation must be indemnified against financial loss; Judging by Ministerial statements, the present Cabinet is not prepared to grant this. Instead, they arbitrarily decide that half the adult male population shall make all the real sacrifice, whilst the other half shall make none. There are those who argue that the other half, by paying higher .income tax, excess profits tax, or butter-fat levy, or what not, are making a sacrifice. I am one of those whose real income has been diminished by the war, - but I say emphatically that although my income tax has been increased by 13:1 1-3 per cent., that lias involved ho sacrifice worthy of being called by the name. And yet my neighbour is not only called on to, give his life, but to leave his dependants to exist on a mere pittance which will scarcely pay house vent. There are many to whom the allowances to 'soldiers and dependants make no difference, whose sources of income are such that they do not cease when they go into camp or when they "go West." But. sir, supposing that vou, the editor of a city newspaper, are 'a man. of military age, with a wife and two children, with no source of income put your salary, which, for the sake of argument, is .£3OO a year. Your income ceases when-you go into camp; you, have not been in your position long enough to accumulate; would you then admit that all the* country owes yom when yon serve it as a private soldier is, at the outside, ,£3 12s. Od. a week, or that if you are killed, £2 nev week is an ade-« ornate pension for your wife and family? , . .... Mr. von Haast is one who is willing and anxious to do his share. Perhaps vou' yourself are a patriot. By a patriot I mean, not one who is ready to tall; ot sacrifice, which in so many cases means some other fellow's sacrifice, but one who is prepared to say, "I am willing to serve mv country in any capacity. It I/am left in civil life, my surnlus income belongs to my country." We have many patriots of the kind that are willing to invest their surplus in war. loans if the inducement he made ugn enough. We have many who talk abou.t "the last man an<l the. last shilling, hut. note, "the last ma"" always comes first, and "the last shilling" is to be a borrowed one. which the men who fight niul their dependants will help to pay biw*. „ , ' To return to tho "general average. The proposal, made in all good faith, takes no notio.e of the recognised economic principle, embodied in progressive taxation, that the payment of £10 m taxation bv a man with .CIOOA a year involves generally - less sacrifice than the payment of Jia. bv a man with I'soo. a year. From this point of view it must be condemned, as unsound, unless it is modified to mean a general average of sacrifice, and not a mere general average of money contribution With this modification, I should heartily support my friend's proposal, sn far as it relates to payments to soldiers. But I would go further, and once for all settle the charge so often made bv anti-militarists, that wars are promoted by the capitalists for their own profit. In New Zealand, farmers, merchants, and contractors for military supplies are doing well out of the war. No one'should profit by war. No Government should exist for a day which enters into war without being prepared to face the logical consequence of inodrn war, the throwing of the whole of the national resources into the war. No one in..war time should have surplus income if that surplus is required to, prosecute the war. The system of financing war mainly by borrowing, that is, throwing the cost on the next generation, a'-though it has been adopted by all the belligerent nations, is a blind following of precedtot, ■ and has no economic justification. _ I can imagine the Prime Minister rubbing his eyes to make sure that he 1 as not misread this; and exclaiming, "What! Does an economist really nnrl se?ionsly say that wo should finance the l.ar mainly out o? revenue?" 1 say, sir, that New Zealand can, and should, finance this war out of revenue. • A country tlia tean afford to spend somsthing like, four millions or more on racing, and two or three millions on alcoholic liquorwholesale price, probably four to five millions' retail—can well afford a million a month as long as the war lhsts. '

While I write comes the evening palter, with the Prime Minister's circular letter to mayors of cities and boroughs on the (Subject of a public meeting cf '-itizens on the annivarsary of the declaration of war No finer resolution --ould he submitted, so far as it goes; tFo pccompanying circular is also good, so far as it goes. But there is no word of the State's duty to the men already at the front, of its duty to those seven-thou-sand five hundred who have g'ven their lives, to the thousands who hr.vo been permanently injured, to the wives and children who will in the l'ext year of ■war lose their 1 husbands and fathers. I believe the resolution will bo carried from end to end of the Dominion, but I believe also that every man who has a right to call himself a patriot will support the addition of a clause: "And expresses its regret that the beginning of the fourth year of war finds the resources of the country not organised on a basis of equal sacrifice."—l am. etc., • ' F. P. WILSON. Wellington, July 24....