SMALL CAPITALISTS

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 119, 23 May 1925, Page 6

SMALL CAPITALISTS

Eecently "The' Post" published an article summarising the information collected by an American investigator as to distribution of capital. It was shown that the control of many great industrial enterprises, far from being in the hands of a few wealthy persons, was shared by hundreds of thousands of investors, very many of them being wage-workers. The investigator discovered that there had been a marked and rapid change in the ownership of great services.' Workers of all classes were becoming capitalists, and this, he considered, held the solution of the modern industrial problem of the contest between labour and capital, since it promoted union of interests and tho realisation that each was essential to the other. A further contribution to the discussion of this subject was made recently by Mr. W. Runciman, 11.P., who collected figures to indicate the extent to which wealth in Britain is accumulating in the hands of the workers, and being distributed over a wider area. Taking account of only three forms of investment: Post Office Savings Bank, the Trustee Savings Bank, and National Saving Certificates and "War Stock, Mr. Eunciman found that £777,834,000 was held by fifteen million capitalists. He made no estimate of the working-class deposits in co-operative banks, friendly societies, and life insurance institutions, nor of the workers' holdings of industrial and financial share capital which in America proved to be considerable. His inference as to the wider distribution of wealth was not accepted by Professor Clay, of Manchester, who, in a letter to "The Times," claimed that it was still safe to say that two-thirds of the national capital was held by less than two per cent, of the people. Professor Clay, however, made no attempt to estimate capital holdings in industrial enterprises, and he admitted that a pre-war estimate of wealth distribution showed greater inequality than one based on later investigations.

Another correspondent of "The Times" dvcw attention to the importance of sonic of the figures whiuh had. been omitted from consideration. For example, people ■whose income ■was below the taxStbie. gjaayjit Jaa4 £431*8W*fi0a in-

vested in land and houses and were drawing income therefrom. Even this figure did not take full account of small, ownership, as it did not cover houses occupied by the owners. Even more important than the distribution of wealth, however, is the.distribution of income, and "The Times" was able to quote figures showing that there had been a marked movement towards greater equality in this respect. It was shown that whereas taxable income had risen from £755,500,000 in 1912-13 to £1,320 - 000,000 in 1922-23,. the income returned but exempt from taxation had risen from £356,000,000 to £1,570,000,000. As the exemption limit is much lower in Britain than New Zealand (£l3O as against £300) this indicates that the proportion of the national income divided among the poorer-paid classes is now much greater than formerly. With a more" even distribution of income, allied to reasonable thrift, the tendency to popular ownership of capital must become stronger. Whatever form thrift may take, insurance, home purchase, savings bank deposits, or small investments, it is undeniably of great national benefit. The man who does a little for himself in this way realises quickly that it is much more profitable than complaining about-what others fail to do for him.