LAND AND LABOUR.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXV, Issue 16564, 30 May 1914, Page 6

LAND AND LABOUR.

(This column, weekly set aside for the discussion of land and labour problems, is edited by Mr Arthur Withy, general secretary of the Now Zealand Land Values League, with whom alone rosts the responsibility fw tho opinions expressed theroin.)

"HANGERS-ON."

HOW TO DEAL WITH THEM

The reply given by Mr J. H. Braduey, Reform member for Auckland West, at his recent Ponsonby meeting to the question as to whether he would try and induce the Government to provide work for tho unemployed, will bo long remembered against him, and should go far to discount whatever chances ho may have had of being returned to Parliament at the coming general election. "In answering this question." we are told, "Mr Bradney said it was not the duty of the Government to find work for them. Such a procedure would tend to create ' hangers-on.' Workers were wanted, not 'Taangers-on,' who loafed and lot their wives go out washing." For a man who can only retain his seat by the aid of workers votes such a reply is singularly tactless and foolish. In itself it is sufficient to show that Mr Bradney is no politician. It is true he might in that sense be no politician and yet be a statesman, bold enough to tell the people tho truth as ho saw it and strong enough to win in spite of doing so. But that Mr Bradney is no statesman is proved to a demonstration by the very fact that he belongs to the Reform Party—the Tory Party, which, as John Bright rightly said many years ago, is " always the stupid party." Mr Bradney, of course, has merely blurted out what is at the back of tho minds of all Reformers, though most of them astutely keep it to themselves. But Mr Bradney forgets that "HANGERS-ON" ARE OF TWO CLASSES, great and small. As the late Sir John Gorst well said, "If a man doesn't work, you (the people, the workers) havo got to keep him, whether he is a- duke or a docker." In New Zealand one might say, "whether ho is a squatter or a sundowner." Those who don't work, whether dukes or dockers, squatters or sundowners, are all " hangers-on " and loafers. The only difference is that it costs the people a great deal more to keep a duke or a squatter than it does to keep a docker or a sundowner, and of course if the " hanger-on's" wife goes out washing to keep him, his keep costs the general public nothing. But who ever heard of a duke's wifo or a squatter's wife keeping her husband by going out washing. Individually and as a class the big " hangers-on," whose wives don't go out washing, cost New Zealand far more than the lesser " harigers-on," whether the latter's wives go out washing or not. And the truth of the matter is, of course, that Mr Brodney's party, the Squatters' Party, is " THE PARTY OF THE BIG 1 HANGERS-ON.' " There are, it is true, still some big "hangers-on" in the Liberal Party, but ultimately they will go where they belong. They will join the " Reform " Party, and the sooner tho better. Since 1891 the cost to New Zealand of the big " hangers-on " has increased by no less a sum than £7,000,000 a year, or considerably more than all our rates and taxes put together. No wonder their wives don't need to go out washing 1 And, as land monopolists, these big " hangors-on". not only render no service to the people of New Zealand in return for that £7,000,000 a year, but, by holding a largo part oi the land or New Zealand either absolutely idle or only very inadequately used, they do the country a very great dis-service. These big land monopolists, unemployed, in fact, are mainly responsible for the existenco of the lesser unemployed.

Because of THE LAND THEY HOLD IDLE or only half or a quarter-used, many a willing worker has to stand idle; and even of the unwilling workers many would be willing enough to work and would never have become unwilling workers if only every worker got the full product of'his labour. Since the big "hangers-on" cost us far more than the lesser "hangerson," let us deal with them first. The huge " unoarned incomes" they draw, and which enable them to live not only without working but also without letting their wives go out washing, consist, for the most part, of land values earned by, i.e., produced by, and therefore rightly belonging to, the community as a whole. if, therefore, as is only right and just and proper, we take this community-created value for public purposes, the big "hangerson" will nave to do something for a living—(Heaven forbid that their wives should go out washing 1) —and the land they now hold idle or only partly used

WILL HAVE TO BE PUT TO FULL USE

It can only be put to its full use by employing a great deal more labour and that will mean such a greatly increased labour that all willing workers will get good, well-paid work to do. All wages will increase, not only in amount but also in purchasing power, for the land tax revenue will oe 60 great as to enable us to abolish all taxes, local and national, that now force up rents and prices and force wages down. Indeed, the resulting increase in money wages and in purchasing power will bo so g'' e ?;* that many now unwdling to work will become willing workers, very willing workers; for it will pay them far better to work than to loaf. Thus by solving the problem of the big "hangers-on' we shall very largely solve that of the small "hangers-on" also, and. what then remains of tho latter problem, if anything at all remains, can be very readily dealt with. I thank Mr Bradney, at present Reform member for Auckland West, for the very useful text he has offered me.

THE PRICE OF BREAD. " GIVE US THIS DAY OUR DAILY BREAD "-UNTAXED! The recent increase in the price of bread has " given furiously to think, -as the French people would say, throughout New Zealand; and in Oamaru and other places co-operative bakeries are projected with a view to forcing down the price. But the fault would *eom to Ho, not so much with the bakers, as with tha flour-milling capitalists who, protected tho people by a flour tax of £1 per ton, can within certain limits of course, put'up prices at their own sweet will. As was shown in evidence before the Royal Commission on the Cost of Living bv Mr F. M. King, of Auolsiand, the tax of £1 per ten on flour, while bringing in the paltry revenue of £4OOO to £SOOO a year, costs tho people ot New Zealand, with dealers profits added and together with the increased cost of New Zealand milled flour because of the tax, no less than £112.000 a year, more than all the wages paid in all the flour mills of Now Zealand. Thanks to the flour tax, tho capitalists in tho flour-nulling industry of this dominion, turning out some 100,000 tons of flour per year, nro able to add to their prices a cool £IOO,OOO a year whereas they pay in wages only £50.000 a. year. That is to say the tax of, £1 per ton on flour give* the employers

in the industry £2 in increased prices for ©very £1 they pay in wages! THE FLOUR TAX IS A BREAD TAX

and it costs the people of New Zealand at least £162,000 a year. But for the flour tax tho breadwinners of New Zealand could buy all the bread and flour and such liko they now buy and have £162,000 a year more- than they have now left in their pockets to buy olier necessaries and comforts for themselves and their families. Surely, therefore, this bread tax of £1 peiton on flour ought to be abolished, and that right speedily.

" But if you abolish tho flour tax," say the ilour-milling capitalists, "we shall have to close down our flour mills because of outside competition, and all the hands we employ will bo thrown out of work." That is to say their industry cannot do without State-aid to keep it going. Well, assuming that to be the case, surely we can find a better and cheaper means of giving that State-aid than the flour tax which deprives the people of £162,000 a year in order that tho flour-millers may pay £50,000 a year in wages. It would be far better and far cheaper to

GIVE A DIRECT STATE BONUS to the industry. But what would the people say., what would the people feel liko if tho flour-millers, who now, thanks to the flour tax, get £2 in added prices for every £1 tiny pay in wages, were to oome to them and say, '' You navo abolished the flour tax and we must shut down our flour mills and throw all our hands out of employment unless you give us a substantial State bonus every year. Give us a bonus of £IOO,OOO a year, so that wo may keep our mills going and continue to pay our hands £50,000 a year in wages?" I think the people of New Zealand would feel very much as tho Almighty must have felt when Israel Zangwill's Jew prayed: "Oh, Lord, give me £IOO,OOO so that I can give £50,000 to the poor I" and then, on seoond thoughts, added, " Oh, Lord, if you canM> trust me to give the £50,000 to tho poor, pray give rue £50,000 for mine own self, and You give the £50,000 to the poor Your own self I" The people of New Zealand, I think, would hardly bo so foolish as to give to the employers in any industry a State bonus greater than th© full amount they pay in wages; for, rather than do that, it would pay tho people better to close down the industry and nay th© "hands," as the employers call them, full wages for doing nothing. And, assuredly, any industry that would not pay if granted a Stat© bonus equal to tho full amount paid in wages—any industry, in short, that would not pay if the employers got "free gratis, for nothing" all the labour they employ—is worth considerably less than nothing to the people of Now Zealand, whatever it may bo worth to " protected" employers, who, thanks to Customs taxes, are able to bleed tho people to such a tune. By

ABOLISHING THE FLOUR TAX of £1 per ton, and giving th© flourmillers a State bonus equal to the full amount they pay in wages, i.e., giving them absolutely free all the labour they employ, the people of New Zealand would still save £112,000 a year on the deal.

Let us, therefore, abolish the flour tax; and, sine© we are not partial to dry bread, let us also, while we are at it, abolish the tax on butter and the tax on jam. The butter tax of 2fd per lb brings in little or no revenue; but when thor© is a shortage of butter in New Zealand, thanks to overexporting, that tax of 2jd per lb just keeps other butter from being imported, and just enables New Zealand dealers to force up the price of butter to the exorbitant figure of Is 5d to Is 6d per lb. Give us our daily bread and butter untaxed, is a demand that th© peopl© of New Zealand may well mate of their Government. And if the Government fails to grant that demand, at their peril be it. ARTHUR WITHY.