SOCIALISM m ENGLAND. 
308 
the consideration of tenant-farmers). The Professor, though 
approving of Mr. George’s scheme of taxing land almost up to 
its full value as an ideal to be aimed at, utters a wise word of 
caution against the sudden imposition of so gigantic a land tax. 
This would not only cause hardship to landlords, but would 
also shake the sense of security in all kinds of property, and 
would lead to a great change in the character of the demand 
for commodities which, however desirable in the abstract, would 
work great injury to many skilled labourers. As to taxes on 
interest, the Professor cannot agree with those who speak as if 
capital was of no assistance to labour. A tax falling on interest 
would tend to drive capital abroad, and is therefore inexpedient. 
A tax on the earnings of commercial and professional people 
is, however, not open to the same economic objection, at least 
not in the same degree ; for it is far easier to transfer abroad 
capital than ability. Accordingly, Mr. Symes advocates a 
progressive income-tax to be gradually increased in severity. 
The curious result, then, of the teaching of the “dismal 
science,” even in the hands of a Socialistic clergyman, is that a 
tax on earnings, the produce of labour, and the reward of the 
industrious, is advocated, while a tax on the spurious progeny 
of infamous capital, the result of spoliation and the support of 
the idle, is acknowledged to be inexpedient. Nevertheless, 
the Professor’s economical analysis is, in the main, correct ; 
but the question whether taxation on a large scale on these 
lines is expedient (apart from all consideration of its justice, 
the highest expediency) depends on a variety of circumstances, 
not the least important of which is, what is it intended that 
the State should do with the vast funds so raised ? Will it in 
the long run make a better use of them than the private indi* 
viduals from whom they are taken ? 
Mr. Symes advocates “ the use of public money for the direct 
amelioration of the dwellings of the poor and the circumstances 
of their children.” Differing, however, as we shall see, from 
the Social Democratic Federation, he would “let the improved 
dwellings at competition rents,” but he says “ they would cease 
to command monopoly prices.” To get rid of monopoly or 
scarcity prices altogether would be impossible with competition