Socialist Policy

Hutt News, Volume 20, Issue 15, 3 April 1946, Page 7

Socialist Policy

> ■ ■•■<s>■- - TALK BY DR. MAZEXGARR QUESTION O E DISINHERITANCE Addressing members of the National Party in Lower Hutt. on Friday night, Dr. O. J. Mazengnrb said:— “There lias been a good deal of public discussion lately on the question of disinheritance. What I cannot. understand is why Cabinet Ministers should be so anxious to treat this as a fable. They have always put in the forefront of their policy the ‘public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange.’ Complete public ownership necessarily involves the annulment of private ownership of land and capital. If private ownership is abolished it must follow as a necessary consequence that there can be nothing to inherit. “As an economic theory the idea of disinheritance is not new. It was first propounded by Rignano. He proposed that very heavy death duties should be imposed on ail inherited wealth and smaller duties on savings made by a deceased during his lifetime so that inherited wealth would not go beyond the first generation. Socialists seized upon Rignano’s idea as a means of bringing about public ownership of all capital. It has been frequently discussed. One of their leading writers, G. D, H. Cole, set out Labour's plan in a book first published in 1932. It is difficult to believe that Mr. Fraser and Mr. Nash have not read this and other similar Socialistic proposals for disinheritance. Change-over to Socialism. “Fifty years ago the Socialist was a lone preacher. Socialism was generally regarded as an ideal - a dream of visionaries. Few people believed' then that there was any likelihood of a Socialistic State in til is Dominion. Any doubts that we may have had as to the possibility of a complete change-over to Socialism were dispelled by the sudden and unexpected transition in Russia during the former World War. That change-over was the result of a bloody revolution. Can it be achieved by methods which we regard as constitutional? Mr. Fraser does not hppear to have any doubts upon the matter, for lie is on record in Hansard as saying: ‘When' you talk about altering the capitalist system and causing it to cease, destroying it, and substituting common ownership you are dealing with a tangible, and, in my opinion, a practicable scheme for improving our present method of, producing and distributing wealth.’

“In 1937 Mr.. Nash went to Rus i sia and he came back full of eiir thusiasm concerning Communism. He told us; ‘Tiie Soviet system of economic planning was better than under any other form of government that he knew of. The Soviet’s problems were greatly simplified by the fact that the State owned all the land, of which it had obtained possession by killing off the owners during the revolution,’ Mr. Walsh’s Statement. “At that time Mr. Nash did make an attempt to adhere, to orthodox methods of finance, but; he knocked away the main prop by taking complete charge of the Reserve Bank. The result (even although Mr Nash may not have intended it) has been that we have reached an economy in which the supply of paper money greatly exceeds the supply of land and goods. The stabilisation statement by Mr. F. P. Walsh has drawn pointed attention to this. His remedy is to increase production so that the national income will- again rise to the level of . expenditure. That would be a consummation devoutly to he wished, but already there are signs that the manual workers, upon whom the Government mainly relies for its voting strength, resent the idea that they should produce more for the same pay. The replies to Mr. Walsh indicate plainly that the ‘workers’ think the ‘capitalists’ should pay more. That might be alright, but income tax lias already been raised to such a level that nothing more can be obtained by raising the rates on higher incomes. If the national budget cannot be balanced by more production or by increased taxation the Government, will he driven by its supporters into the conscription of capital. Its difficulty is that there is still a sufficient number of people of small means which could make its voice heard on the subject of a capital levy. But dead men cannot speak and, in the financial emergency as revealed by Mr. Walsh, the thoughts of those who aspire to complete Socialism in this generation naturally turn to the taxation of inheritance as a constitutional means of balancing the budget.

Pressure of Supporters,

“The question before us is whether Mr. Nash and Mr. Fraser will ho able to withstand the pressure of their supporters. Their complete surrender to the Conference demand for the public ownership of the Bank of New Zealand fully justifies the current fear that, if re-elected, they will similarly submit to a demand for the acquisition by the State of nil the assets of si deceased, . i subject only to an annuity on portion of the estate sufficient to maintain the widow and children. Whether the Government admits It or

not, that is the plan which some of its supporters have always had in mind. The Government’s inflationary policy is driving it towards that end. People who believe that the permeranence of the family has a social value which the British right of inheritance helps to maintain cannot afford to take any chances

‘“There has been a rift in the clouds—the result of the Raglan byelection, the increased membership of the National Party, and other encouraging signs—and there is reason to believe that if we all do our part there will be a Government in power at the end of the year which will make the country proud and free.” DENIAL BY MB. FRASER NO DISINHERITANCE BILL The Prime Minister, Mr. P. Fraser, in a statement in Wellington, said: “A new and degraded standard has been set in political controversy by the persistent publication and reiteration, in spite of the most explicit and authoritative denial of the falsehood in regard to the Labour Government having had under consideration legislation providing for disinheritance. “The lie as promulgated in the propaganda of the National Party and by its speakers is sometimes inferential, sometimes plain and direct I repeat what I have said previously, that the matter has never been considered, discussed by, or even mentioned in the proceedings of the Government during the whole term of Its 10 years in office. This should, convince and satisfy honest people."