“MY £lO,OOO A YEAR.

Hokitika Guardian, 14 November 1925, Page 4

“MY £IO,OOO A YEAR.

CONFESSIONS OF AN UNREPENTANT CAPITALIST,

•‘ I am a suecesful captalist. My income' is £IO,OOO a year. I challenge anyone to show that 1 am not entitled to it or that I perform anything hut a public .service in earning this income.’'

In these words may be summarised a remarkable challenge thrown down by Sir Ernest Heim, the publisher, son of the late Sir John Henn, the Progressive leader, in “The Confessions of a Capitalist.”

Sir Ernest is very frank and entertaining about it all. ll<' reveals exactly how the office-boy of ill years ;igo became the .successful publisher of to-day, and makes no apology for his success. Tie writes challengingly : 1 own two motor cars. I live amidst surroundings that to many people would seem luxurious. . . 1 am, in fact, the sort of person against whom the whole of the Socialist propaganda seems to he launched, and. 1 find myself regarded not only as a superfluity, but as a bar to progress.

as one of the causes of poverty, want, and distress. My bookshelves are crammed with volumes explaining what an evil creature 1 am. 1 possess numbers of hooks telling me how beautiful the world would he if only 1 and tnv class could be eradicated. . . All this is boiled down at the street-corner to the charge of straightforward robbery."

Declaring himself an unrepentant capitalist and believer in private enterprise, Sir Ernest carries the attackstraight into the Socialists’ camp and asks “ Whom do I rob?”

He seeks to show that he cannot ho charged with robbing the men and women he employs. T his is Imv he

puts his position: “ Income £lO,llOO. derived from i turnover of C 100.000.

“Of (his money I pay away to workers and to others £,'11)0,000 find retain for my trouble the 010,000 which is the cause of all this discussion. I take 21 per cent., or (id in the C. •• To 1,0 fair and exact it should he pointed out that I really take H per cent., or lid in the £, for my personal use, and another 3d in the ,C for the benefit of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

“ [ nin providing work at a cost to

the wage-earner of 3d in the sovereign. [ distribute wages on a far lower excuse ratio than that on which old-age pensions tire distributed. Tnemploy-

incut pay costs much more to hand out over the counter of the Labour Exchange than f charge for handing out wages to the large number of persons who have become involved in the enterprise which I have built up. lieferring to the Socialist theory that the workers should employ the capitalist instead of the capitalist employing the workers. Sir Ernest insists that wages could not he secured under

auv system at a lower cost than is charged by him. lie then throws out this hint: “ Matty of the wage-earners who work for me could djivclly secure a very great deal more than they now have if they would direct their attention not to my income, but to my £4110.000 turnover. It is beyond dispute that in taking the whole of my income the workers could only add 3d to every £1 they now receive : whereas many of them could, without trouble, take twice as much ns they now take out of the turnover. . . The most obvious Way in which this can he done is hv realising tiie effects of trade union prac-

tices and restrictive regulations.’’ Sir Ernest adds that his turnover

might he doubled, his income migh

lie doubled, and there might he another £400,000 . available in wages if only the printing trade would allow tho machinery which is at its disposal to work. He argues that industrial prosperity is based on : High production. 11ilc!i profits. High wage.-. Low prices.

There is no ease, he insists, of rea industrial .success in which any one o these four eln-.eiits has been absent

The attempt. Ito declares, on the par of any party or any theory to deny tin utility of any one of them, or to so inri- any one ot them, without refer oiuo to the other three, has not or ye failed to lead to disaster. Sir Finest mentions that his cm plovees work only a 37}-h<ntrs week.