THE “IDLE RICH.”

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume II, Issue 226, 27 August 1912, Page 3

THE “IDLE RICH.”

THE LATEST RADICAL DENUNCIATION. (By W H. Matlock, in the ' Daily Express.’’) The ('liancellor of the Exchequer is reported to have made the assertion on June 28th that the “idle rich”- more numerous, he said, in this country than in any other—form a bedv of about 2,000.000 perrons, •their sole business being,” accord-, ing to him, "to enjoy themselves,” I and their principal method of enjoying themsc-lves being "to lounge in London clubs.” I would first generally observe" that if the idle rich constitute a population of some 2,000,000. they must be considerably more numerous than] adult male population of London. | and that in order to provide them! with the facilities for lounging which i they demand, something like a quarter of London would have to be one { vast club-house. i But let me pass from generalities to particulars. It may be assumed : that the idle rich who do nothing; but lounge and enjoy themselves, i are persons with incomes exceeding I 63- a week, and that they are there-1 fore subject to income-tax. We may also assume that they are the possessors not only of clubs, but! houses, and that the kind of houses which these pampered sons of fortune will occupy are worth not less than 8 - a week, or £2O a year. | Income Tax. t I Now, a minute analysis of the income tax returns, and a comparison of these from one year to i another, goes to show that the number cl persons subject to income tax —i.e., persons having more than three guineas a week —can hardly at the present time be in excess if 1,400,000. Some statisticians (among them Mr. Lloyd George’s supporter, Mr. C’hiozza) put the total much lower. Out of the number in question, whether it be 1.400,000 or less, more than 600,000 are known to be salaried employees of the Government or of business houses. Traders, manufacturers, professional men (exclusive of persons whos businesses are carried on as ‘ public companies”), account for a number somewhat, but pot much less. Where does the Chancellor of the Exchequer find an? indication that in addition to this population of about 1,200,000 persons subject to income tax, there are 2,000,000 others, who are rich enough to revel in luxury, but who yet do absolutely nothing ? Next, as to the question of houses. The number of houses in Great Bri-tain-with a rental value of over 8/a week is at the present time only just over 1,500,000. Where, then, are the 2,000,000 loungers lodged ? Even if they evicted the whole of their I working fellow-citizens who manage i to earn more than £l6O a year, half) a million of those voluptuaries would still be left houseless. | Fabian Figures. 1 j The Fabian Society, with a great affectation of precision, have de dared in one of their publications that the number of the ‘‘idle rich” is 660,000. This estimate is moderate as compared with that of Mr. Lloyd : George ; but how is even that total; made up? The writers are good enough to say that they base their ! figures on the census returns for : 1910, which show, according to them, I that such was at that time the num-1 ber of adult males who did not so 1 much as profess to have ever had ■ ‘‘the shadow of an occupation.” By! consulting the returns to which these I statistical experts refer, we find' that the "unoccupied males” over a 1 certain age, which they identify I with the idle rich, consist in reality! for the most part of retired trades-1 men, persons over sixty-five years of age, all the ‘‘special inmates” of workhouses, asylums, and institutions for the imbecile, together with more than 40,000 outdoor paupers and certain classes of prisoners. Such is the manner in which Soo- j ialist statistics are compiled ; but ■ the Fabians, with all their ingenuity, I reach a total which forms but a i fraction of that of the Chancellor of! the Exchequer. Perhaps the Chan- j cellor of the Exchequei- made his own calculations at the time of the! late coal strike, and included among the idle rich every collier who had' stopped work. Even so, by adding: these to the idle rich of the Fabians, '; he would be short of his own estimate by some 300,'000. Unearned Incomes. Mr. Lloyd George or his support-] ers will perhaps say that the sensational number of 2,000,000 was meant ] to include not only an army of rich men who conceivably might be in- ] dustrious, but also their wives and' babies, the latter of whom would | presumably be idle, whatever their; parentage. In this case the state-] ment would mean that there are] 400,000 rich men whose incomes are! wholly unearned. This statement, i though less grotesque than the other. ! is no less incompatible with facts. | The higher class of incomes are j commonly taken to be about ten | times the amount of house rent cor-1 responding to them. The number of | houses worth more, than £BO a year! is, at the present time, about 120.000. i If every one is "rich” who has morel than £BOO a year, the houses which] some men would presumably occupy; would not account for more than] 120.000 of the idle 400.000. The re-; mainder. if they were not left roof-1 less, woidd have to be accommodated ; in houses worth from £4O to £GO a ; year, and would almost exactly fill I up the entire number of these. Thus I the population subject to income-tax | would be divided into two groups—i those living in houses worth more] than £ 10 a year, every one of whom] was a rich idler with no other busi-j ness than to enjoy himself, while the ] rest of the payers ~f income-tax. who alike did any kind of work—in- i eluding Mr. Lloyd George himself —i would have to put up with houses worth from £4O a year to £2O, i It may be added that there are I about fifty chibs in London, member- i ship of which is not definitely asso-; dated with some kind of occupation, i If we assume the aterage membership of each to be as much as 15u:j. . the total membership would be about , 75,000. on the assumption that nu-

{body was a menibei of more than i one. If. therefore, about. 4(X).o00 linen habitually pass their time in ] lounging in the clubs of London, I 325,000 of them must habitually pass i their time in clubs to which they do | not belong.