The Waterbury Democrat., 1935-09-04

persons, MT. Clark? What becomes of your statement that the share of the many is growing greater?
 If profits averaged only 4.8% in the years 1922 to 1929 as MT. Clark claims, how did so large a number of corporations manage to pay extra, increased or regular dividends of 6%, 70, S% or 9%o; how did some of them man. age to cut huge melons in the form of ''stock dividends" or "rig. s" The total national in- come for 1929 was 90 billions of dollars. According to MT. Clark \ statement, average profit was at tho rate of only 4.8GS; or 4 billion, 32O millions. What became of the balance of 85 billion, 6S0 millions? Since he claims labor's share was only about 65% of the national income he discloses himself as an absolutely dizzy statistician, for after deducting his 4.S% from the 90 billion we have left not 65 % but 95.2%. Labor's share was ap- parently 30.26 greater than the
  stated! Somehow his figures look fishy as the devil when 1t Is re- called that industrial wages for 1929 totaled only slightly over 15 billions out of the total national income of 90 billions.
 Stranger still does 1t seem that if labor is the recipient of so large a share of national income that huge fortunes continue to pile up!
 The National City Bank reports that the 2G0 largest corporations made profits in the first half of 1885 that were 17.0% higher than in the same period last year. Com- pare that with the above figures on pay-rolls and increased cost of living. Does MT. Clark wish to further make himself ridiculous by asserting that wages are up 17.9% to match the rise in profits as re- ported by the City bank?
 Presumably, what Clark means when he says that wealth Is widely distributed, Is that stocks of corporations are held by mill lions of people. True enough. But it is for the most part held in ex- tremely small lots and carries nc control over the issuing company. And hundreds of thousands ot these shares were purchased by people who had no choice but to subscribe or be placed on the blacklist for early lay-offs. Most of these purchasers could i'll af- ford the weekly deductions from their slender pay-checks which were made to pay for the stocks on the installment plan. The wri. ter knows well whereof he speaks for he was once one of the suck CTS. ..'E
 As for savings accounts:-- the average wage in the U. s. in 1884 was $21.0O per week. The many are not saving much on such pit tances! The growth of savings de. posits will be found to have itf origin with the coupon clippers.
 MT. Clark, the windy comman- der of the Crusaders, blames discriminatory legislation" foI the billions frozen" in tax exempt SeCurlt1eS, ueDp't0 tHS AoSS t"ot VI" lions of these dollars were fro zen" during the regimes of Hard ing, Coolidge and Hoover, a per. iod notable for lack of progressive legislation. Progressive legislation Is all discriminatory" to the Cru' saders.
 Might I suggest to Mir. Clark that we abandon the practice oi making Government securities ex' empt from taxation. Undoubtedly this would not please the Advisory Board of the Crusaders, but it would have tendency to seperate them from some of the taxes which they should have been pay Ing these many years.
 What about concentration oi corporate wealth? Treasury sta