Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1914-04-14
WHAT SHALL BE DONE WITH
SURPLUS INCOMES?


sharing recently announced by wei
known manufacturer of automobiles
should have the good effect of stimu
lating popular discussion of tbs
natural laws governing the production
and distribution of wealth. There IL
too little of such inquiry, and current
popular discussion shows slight recog
milton of the great fundamental in
fluences by which the benefits of in
creasing wealth and industrial prog
ress are constantly and inevitably dis
tributed to all members of the com
munity.
PROFESSIONALLY, such influences are
inherent in an industrial society. They
can be traced in all the progress OF
every hand. Apparently, however, an
assumption prevails, even among in
telligent and reflective people. that the
only way an individual can dispose OF
a surplus income so that its benefits
will be distributed to the public is by
giving it away. They imagine that
surplus income-income available for
investment-has passed into the ex'
elusive possession of the owner and
is lost to the rest of the community.
This is so vital an error that it is well
worth while to examine the distribu'
ton that occurs when surplus incomes
are invested upon ordinary business
principles.
We are all prone to think of sur
rounding social and industrial condi'
tions as fixed, and to judge of present
distribution by immediate results. We
instinctvely condemn an annual In.
come of $10,000,O00, because we say it
Is more than one person can possibly
use for his own good, and we have a
vague idea that the surplus, II not
wasted, is buried, boarded, or some
how withheld from use. If the fact
could be brought home to everybody
that this surplus Is actually put to
public use new light would fall upon
the existing order.
And this is the truth about surplus
incomes. 1t is agreed that $4,000, 900
is more than one man can use for mis-
own benefit. This is evident; there
can be no argument over it, However,
the surplus may be disposed Of, the
owner will have none of 1t in any per-
sonal sense. If he invests it for profit
he may derive satisfaction from having
the title in his own name and from
seeing the principal grow, but that
satisfaction will consume nothing and
cost the rest of us nothing. His own
ership does not diminish the sum total
by one iota. The surplus is all avail
able for investment, and with all its
proceeds for reinvestment. and the
question at the moment is whether
society will be best served by having
the owner invest it and manage it and
increase it, or by having him dissipate
it by gratuitous distribution, as in the
case at hand.
To answer this question adequately
society must look beyond immediate
results and beyond current consump-
ton, just as an individual does when
he considers whether he will spend his
entire income from year to year as he
receives It, or save part of it for
capital in, order to enlarge his future
income, and against future contin-
gencies. Somebody must save and ac-
cumulate capital, or there can be no
social progress. If all the wealth that
has been used for the construction of
railroads and for the modern equip
ment of industry had been distributed
Tor current consumption the masses of
the people certainly would have been
nowhere near as we'll off as they are
now.-George E. Roberts. director of
the, mint, in the American Review of
PovioUa