TO THE RESCUE!

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 1, 1 July 1932, Page 5

TO THE RESCUE!

EMTS::IWA&ES

i-ANDLORD^S CRISIS

[<By Mortgagor-Mortagee-Wage-earner.) With a rcnowed advocacy of tho (dole, instead of relief works, . tho ■whole vicious circle will need to be roixamincd. . In tho ordinary course of affairs proStable work provides a living,wage, by means of which' the worker can buy shelter, food, and clothing. As a rule, he buys shelter cither by paying rent ■for a house or by paying off (in instalments from time- to time) the capital jcost of a house. '' In the first case ho is !a' rent-payer and in the second case |ie is an interest-payer. If the latter, 4(8 is also supposed to pay local body lates, fire insurance premiums, and maintenance. "' Ho buys food and clothing pithor for 'Cash or on. some form of credit. Credit •means that he hopes to pay in time. ITime-payinent figures in a more specific legal form when certain spocial articles ai-o sold to tho worker with conditions >for repossession. But the services xejresented by shelter, food, 'and ? clothing are primary. X' When profitable work and living wage (come to an end for about fifty thousand people, tho Government has to consider ho'w v theso services aro 'to bo carried on for them. The Government can do one of several things:— ■ ~ (1) It can provide a money dole; : Or • ; (2) It can provide the services of shelter and food- and perhaps clothing; or (3) It can provide work (of a sort) at a low wage and'leave the relief worker to provide his services as best he.may; ,or •'(4) It can decline all responsibility. At present the Government is following plan No. 3 with a rationing system partly-on the line of plan No. 2. But tho providers of the service of shelter (housing) are'loudly telling tho Government that its present system of relief pay and-, rations will not prevent a crash. FLIGHT FROM THE MORTGAGE. Consider then carefully .the service , of shelter: He who provides houses for other people to live in is generally a landlord (runt-receiver) or a mortgageo (interest-receiver). Recently, many shelter-providers who were mortgagees have been (forced back from, the mortgagee class into the landlord class through the collapse of the above-men-tioned system, of selling houses on timepayment. This system created a first mortgagee (probably the State Advances Office), a second mortgagee (pos^ ■ eibly the builder of the house, or somor one who bought from.him the second mortgage), and an owner (on; paper) of the house. The owner paidinterest to the first mortgagee (Government) and the second mortgagee. When the slump_ stopped his payments, he got into interest arrears, and ; 4 the second mortgagee was forfced to become the owner of ..the house (with: liability for interest ■.•and arrears to the first mprtgagee,.;,lia,bility also for rates, insnx-' ance, 6tc.), while the late owner' perhaps T^mained in possession as a tenant unablej^o-pay rent. Whether:.-a ■ land-7 lord has:always been a landlord; or whetherfh"e -;has,; slipped. ' back 'into ■' landlordry by -some- such mortgage-- collapse, his failure- to receive rent means that his ownV. ;S tabili I ty.,':also his.function "as payer v^|]ocaisbbdy:rates;,; ftst-mortgage interostjf fire inSuranii6*srcmiums, and proper^-maintainer, %rel undermined. '& Now, lihe landlord,' or shelter-preyider cays thatiVnis".service is"svitalI?io'^the community/; In?(these days/, ho can" hardly be''v£ccused. o£ e.xcessivo -profit; in many cases-ie cannot be .accused; pt any,profit. Ho.;-says that -Ahe interest leceiver (Statfeor private), the-rates-receiver (loeal'vbddy), the premiumreceiver (fire insurance), and the numerous tradesmen who-'have;,been receiving jobs from him. cannot -afford ./to letthe landlord crash; they are tttemso'lve's quite incapable of taking his place and doing.Jus , job. any better (or as well). He- says jmoreover • that the Government cannot afford to let the . shelter-provider crasS, for the same .reason. (When: the State pushes out' one private landlord, it merely looks for another.) '...-. A REKT-SOTPORTINO rUND. ■ _ Prom the assumption, that'his service is vital to the cqinmunity,: th"e landlord proceeds to -the contention -that the Government, if it provides money, for . work (No. 3711 schedule above) and for ... food (part of No. 2 in' schedulej,: must also provide -monejrfor shelter. -Shelter is a primary, service. If the shelterprovider is to provide it, and'is to pay interest, rates, etc., then the State must take steps to build" his rent up to, a point at which he can do the things, which are required of him, and which otherwise are ' physically" impossible. At once comes the question: :Who pays? At first it was proposed that a flat'rate 1 payment of sixpence a week should be made, by each landlord and each tenant in a position to pay/,thus creating a fund.to build up rents' for rentless houses. ■ Now; it, is proposed that the Goyernmentv'shpuld establish , a sort of rent:subsidisingy fund, 'the; money to beI 'provided.by: an; increasie of the shilling tax on wages to Is 6d or Is 9d or 2s. ■-~;. ■:;,- ,r-v:■>'■/." bbservo the essential difference1 between these two plans. In the first'case, rent-payers and rent-recoivers were: to come to: the rescue- oi impoverished ■ ishelterers ' and shelter-providers; in other words, housing was to putits hand in its pocket to help housing. But under tho second plan, the impoverished section of housing leans on wages. . If the Government decides that, it should further tax wages in order to save' shelter,; -house-interest; rates, etc., can it refuse to further tax wages in order: to enable credit stores to go^on supplying tho necessaries of lifo .to cashless v persons? ' ',;V- ': ' RATIONING ■y^AGES. ; ■Wage-taxation could be raised to a point at -which it becomes.the rationing of wages. ' Everyorie has heard of the rationing of rwork, but has it teen noticed that a system of rationing wage's (without rationing work) might ■be allowed to grow up, unobserved?. Suppose a. firm, employs~2o men '6 days a week for, £6 a week (or £.1 a. day) each. Under a system of rationing work the firm might say to the 20 men: '' Work each week 4 days instead of 6 days for £1 a day." Kesult: A man works.4.day 3 a week for £4 instead of- , 6 daya for £6. But: suppose a Governmßnt raises the wage tax from Is to 5s in the £, or £1 10s on each £6 week. Tho result is that a man then receiver. £4 10s (instead of £4) a week, and works 6 days (2 extra days) for that extra 10s weekly. His pay shrinks, but not his labour. In following the vicious circle, there is-clearly a' limit to what can be put on;w>ges; &yen on. good wages. On the other hand, there is clearly a limit to what; a shelter-provider can endure under the cross-fire of tenants who pay no • rent, of. Governments who demand interest, of local bodies who demand rates, of taxing officials who seek tax on-long gone profits, and of the hundred and one others who, while reviling the1 landlord, have lived in the past on tho tributohe paid. » ; ,' ".'.'';" One pleasing feature is that some re-1 lief workers recognise the landlord's predicament, and will join him in putting the conundrum to the Government, j