"SOCIAL JUSTICE" CANT

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 138, 11 June 1912, Page 6

"SOCIAL JUSTICE" CANT

» Because The Post had the hardihood on Saturday to mention Mr. G. Fowlds •in, a condemnation of the current rant and cant about " social justice," this journal has incurred the ire of Mr. Arthur Withy, general secretary of the New Zealand Land Values League (late Single-Tax League), and the wrath of "Justice," whose letters are published in this issue. "Justice," however, almost seems to be making ironical references to some of the doctrine of Mr. Fowlds, and to bo therefore indirectly supporting The Poet's argument. Mr Withy, of course, defends Mr. Fowlds with a frenzy which borders on the fierce. As there is nothing like leather to the shoemaker, so thero is nothing like single-tax to tho eingle-taxer. It is a better sovereign remedy for any sickness of the body politic than a Royal Commission. Adopt single-tax, and at once tho land will overflow with milk and honey, and the birds will pipe "social justice." The single-tax will strike water from rock as the rod of Moses did. "He (Mr. Fowlds) points out," says Mr. Withy, "the root injustice with no uncertain hand, and just as clearly he points to the root remedy — the gradual untaxing of private earnings, and the taking 6tep by step of more and more of the public earnings for public purpisee— the gradual untaxing of wages, in short, and the taxation of laud values instead." For "taxation of land values " read " single-tax," the old term, .and you have the philosopher* stone to establish the golden age. Assume, for the moment, that all earnings are " public "—in a regime of tlie " co-operative commonwealth," for which the United Labour Party and, presumably, Mr. Fowlds (who is> now spokesman of that party) are to strive. How about " taxation" to maintain courts of justice, teachers, and other public servants of tho "non-pioducing " older? They will &till bt * charge 04 U4ki« o(-*U dtiftHaui

some proportion of the earnings of the working day will have to be set aeide for those purposes of state. Briefly, a proportion of the food, clothing, and other goods produced must be reserved for the general purposes of good government, and these things would be a charge on the whole community. Long ago wo supported the argument that "unearned increment" should be a factor in the assessment of taxation, but, in agreeing with the principle that "com-munity-created values" should not be ignored, we are at variance with the extremist doctrine of Messrs. Fowlds aud Withy. These gentlemen submit, prao tically, that the people of New Zealand are robbed of over £16,300,000 a year —over £80 for. every family of five— by "a landlord ' tribute." What becomes of this alleged £16,000,000 of plunder? Is it eaten or drunk or worn out by the plunderers, or buried, like the talent !of the steward in the parable? Assume that it exists. Will it not be mainly ! invested in industries, primary and secondary, increasing the Bupply of goods for general distribution among the | workers employed by the use of that | capital? It is not enough to allege that a sum of £16.000,000 is annually filched from the public. The advocates of this theory need to trace the alleged booty to the spending point. We grant that the Bystem of taxation is not perfect, but even a perfect system of rearranging thb present quantity 'of food, clothing, and other goods produced would not necessarily stifle the demand for "social justice" (which, according to one cable t message from Australia yesterday, is a 'six-hour day and a five-day week, "whenever practicable"). The supply of goods has to be increased per head of population, and this is to bo done by work. Ono aid is a sane system of closer land settlement, but always thero will have to be work— and men able to- intelligently direct that work v , in the interests of "social justice" generally, must not be unduly harried by persons with a mania for legislative experiments. If a passion for "social justice," by multifarious and multitudinous statutes, obsesses reformers, then men well qualified to help in increasing the yield of goods for the advantage of the general public will have that power hindered to the general disadvantage of the public. The net result would be a raising instead of a lowering of the cost of living.