Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 71

Chapter XVIII. — Income from Ground Rent and from Dividends Contrasted

Chapter XVIII.

Income from Ground Rent and from Dividends Contrasted.

There is another difficulty which some men cannot get over. It is this—that they can see no difference in principle between the receipt of an income which consists of ground rent and one which consists of dividends on shares in any hank, manufactory, or public company. page 41 They say that if the landlord does not produce the ground rent which he receives, neither does the shareholder produce the dividend. A little examination, however, will serve to show that this conclusion is founded upon a superficial view of the two cases, and not upon a careful analysis of them. The first case has been dealt with, and will only need repeating here in the form of a brief summary.

The landlord class have obtained possession of something which they did not make and which no man made. They performed no service to any fellow creature in taking possession of it. It had existed, and would have continued to exist, if no landlords had ever appeared. They might have owned it all their lives, but would have received neither income nor produce from it unless a community had existed for the one and tenants for the other. The presence of the community gives it the rental value, which forms the landlords' incomes. The work of the user is what makes it produce anything, and not the presence of the landlords. They cannot, therefore, he entitled to either result. The dealing in land is nothing more than the buying and selling of charters to make impositions. The ground rent and the produce are divided between the workers and those who have contributed nothing towards production, but have hindered its operations all through. There is no justice in any such division taking place. Land-owning is not "wealth owning" but privilege owning.

The shareholder has, on the other hand, embarked his savings in an undertaking which would not have existed unless he and others had saved and made efforts. They perform a public service by helping to start an industry. It will cease to exist if all shareholders withdraw from it. While it exists it provides employment for, and pays wages to, men who use the appliances provided by the shareholders. Instead of forestalling the chance of these users the shareholders come forward and supply it. The resulting produce is divided, in the shape of wages and dividends, between the two parties who have contributed to production.

In briefly summarising the position it will appear, in contrast, thus:—

The landlord class lends something which it has not produced, but simply appropriated; it leaves all risk and organisation to the workers, after receiving from them an annual payment for permission to work.

The shareholder lends appliances which he has made; takes all risks of return; organises employment, and pays wages. He then takes the chance of anything being left for himself.

It is quite evident that the sources of, as well as the manner of providing, the respective incomes are the very antipodes of each other.

There is a point, however, which must be admitted, and that is that the division of the proceeds in the case of the company may not always give satisfaction, but the reason for this and its cure has been dealt with more fully in Chapters XIV. and XVI. It may be repeated page 42 here, however, that if the employees, through the absence of landlords, could get permission to securely use land without buying it, they would be in a position to protect themselves by declining wages which did not satisfy them. It is not shareholders or employers who stand in the way, but land monopolisers.