BRITAIN'S NATIONAL INCOME

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 218, 9 June 1919, Page 6

BRITAIN'S NATIONAL INCOME

some Illuminating facts WORK AND WAGES ylt^has'beeirsauf that every schoolboy of young 'man should have; ground into him a certain minimum of statistical /fact which'would enable him to avoid the grosser. and vaguer" kind of errors w.hichV'dogv most people throughout their li'veoi" if jsp (says tho' "Westminster Cinz,c£tb's" 'zcvie'wer) a reading, of Professor Bbwlcy.'s. analysis of'the national income beforb tne'war, just published under.the title, of "The Division of the Product of Industry," should be compulsory, at least for tho more advanced students; and we commend it jhere- and now to all AI.P/s,, Labour politicians, social .reformqrs/r'and. .others who are tempted to geuer.aliso /a'shly on insecure foundations. 3?OT,by.', his-'appeal to facts and figures Professor, Bowley shows :that a large -j\u'raber. tf current beliefs about. the /national wealth'are either grossly exaggcrateU,,oi\. Altogether baseless, and if .he succeeds'in.arresting attention he may 6ave us from a great deal of aimless rushing down'blind alleys, or, .. •still *vorse, experiments in legislation which must come to grief against hard facts. It is a, thankless task to disillusion the sanguine,l'":but when this is ' tho. necessary condition of opening up. the really promising lines of advance, it must bo undertaken fearlessly. And Professor Bowley helps us not only by blocking the .wrong road, but by pointing to tho right one. let U3 set. down .briefly the main results of this investigation. ' Tho broad fact to start from is that In 1911 tho income of the United Kingdom was ,£1,900,000,000, or less. Of this ,£S00,000,O»0 (42 per cent.) was paid in ' *vages. ■ ' ~ . ■ .£264,000,000 (13 per cent.) was paid m small salaries or earned by independent •workers or small employers whose ln-come-'was duo almost entirely to tlieir own exertions. • , Including old-age pensions, neany GO per cent, went to people whose annual Income- was below the exemption limit for income tax—i.e., .CIGO. , The remainder ,£742,000,000) went to tho income-tax paying class, and Professor Bowley divides it as follows :— Ml) Earned as 6alarie3 or -by fanners,

'.£145,000,000. '(«) Unearned (i.e., from.real 'property or securities), £190,000,000. , ■•'•(3)'■•Profits'of trades •■ and professions,

'&M7,ooo;ooo. ' '" : .■'■:''. ,:' i'!The' ; avera'ge salary of salaried persons paying income tax was about ,£340, and ffieaverago''profit of persons assessed to profit in'the samo class' about ■ Suppose-these, "earned, incomes" were cut down to ah'average'of. oCIGO, wo are 1 left with .£550,000,000 as "the outside estimate" of the'part of home-produced income that' is the target of attack by

tie extreme,-Socialists." . . ■ I'But.out'of tliis. sum the great, part of; tie "national'saying. needed, for. capital jirmadc, 'and a' large 'part' of • national expenses and when'these are snbi tracted only 200 to 250 .millions remain, which on'theVextremi'st' reckoning can have been spent out of home-produced income by the rich or moderately welloff on anything, of. the nature of luxury. This sum would have little' more than sufficed, if it .could all have been realieed and,all hate beon'transferable, to bring

the.wages- of adult men.and women up I to the- minimum of 355; 3d. a week for a man, and 20s. for a woman, which; My. • Kawntreo reckoned as a reasonable-lreing ■ tragbr.iiefore tho war. ' I'Tho supposition •that iti could all have-been realised and transferred, is, of course, as' Professor Bowley points out, not tenable. Aotually the cutting-down of carted incomes would seriously diminish both the will and the power to work, and a good deal of, income would in the process ■ of : transfer.] If the income from abroad, which, before the,war was about ■£80,<X)0.000, were- thrown into the pot,

'the: net i income, after rates and taxes were paid, fan<t an adequate sum invested in home industries, would havo. been jabout "M 53 per family or, if income from abroad wero included, .£162.