Structural violence impacts people on the bottom rung of society.
Yes, I believe so; and I believe the same is the case with the joint stock banks in England. At the same time we know that there have been, both in England and in Ireland, very bad cases of insolvency of joint stock banks, and it is to provide against those exceptional cases that it seems to me necessary to have some restriction on 1 notes.
Exactly how much violence is there on television though.
By this time, I think, an acute reader, who sees towards what results a course of inquiry is tending before the conclusion is drawn, will begin to perceive that Mr. Thornton’s improvements in the theory of price, minute as they appear when reduced to their real dimensions, and unimportant as they must necessarily be in the common case in which supply and demand are but disturbing causes, and cost of production the real law of the phenomenon, may be of very great practical importance in the case which suggested the whole train of thought, the remuneration of labour. If it should turn out that the price of labour falls within one of the excepted cases—the case which the law of equality between demand and supply does not provide for, because several prices all agree in satisfying that law; we are already able to see that the question between one of those prices and another will be determined by causes which operate strongly against the labourer, and in favour of the employer. For, as the author observes, there is this difference between the labour market and the market for tangible commodities, that in commodities it is the seller, but in labour it is the buyer, who has the initiative in fixing the price. It is the employer, the purchaser of labour, who makes the offer of wages; the dealer, who is in this case the labourer, accepts or refuses. Whatever advantage can be derived from the initiative is, therefore, on the side of the employer. And in that contest of endurance between buyer and seller, by which alone, in the excepted case, the price so fixed can be modified, it is almost needless to say that nothing but a close combination among the employed can give them even a chance of successfully contending against the employers.
In short, if we go lower down and come to vulgar details, we find that it is the interest of the tailor, the shoemaker, and the hatter that coats, shoes, and hats should be soon worn out; that the glazier profits by the hail-storms which break windows; that the mason and the architect profit by fires; the lawyer is enriched by law-suits; the doctor by disease; the wine-seller by drunkenness; the prostitute by debauchery. And what a disaster would it be for the judges, the police, and the gaolers, as well as for the barristers and the solicitors, and all the lawyers’ clerks, if crimes, offences, and law-suits were all at once to come to an end!
Violence is all over our media but mostly on the TV.
I cannot pretend that I have considered it so fully, and with so much knowledge of the subject as those have done whose business it is, but I have paid some attention to it.
Some people get bad ideas from the violence on T.V....
Yes, and it is a very strong argument in favour of the Chairman’s plan that it does so; that it draws the line very markedly and definitely. My desire would be, if possible, to run the risk of making the line of demarcation a little less definite, in order to include a still greater number of the cases to which the principle applies; but I speak entirely under correction, in regard to the administrative difficulties that would arise in making those distinctions, especially in reference to a very important consideration, the possible introduction of fresh frauds.
The violence shown on television has a surprisingly negative effect.
Suppose that out of an income of 1,000 a year, I save 300 and spend 700 on that 700 I pay the tax once; we will suppose it for the sake of simplicity to be 10 per cent. I pay, therefore, on the 300 30 and I have only 270 remaining; those 270 I make no other use of except to lay them out and receive what they produce, and that produce I expend, and pay the income tax again on its amount. The produce has thus been doubly reduced; in the first place by a reduction of the capital, and in the second place by a tax upon the returns. If there had been no income tax I should not merely have escaped the income tax on the new revenue, but that new revenue would have been one-tenth greater than it is, and therefore I say that I have been taxed twice. A parallel case would, perhaps, serve for illustration. Supposing there were a tax on stockings, intended to be 10 per cent.: if a tax were also laid upon the machinery by which they were made (supposing for simplicity the machinery to include all the expense of making them) will not the stockings be in reality taxed 20 per cent.? It may be replied that the stockings bear one part, and the machinery the other part of the tax; that you have got the machinery and you have got the stockings too. That is true, but the machinery is of no use except to produce the stockings. The stockings are to be the whole of your remuneration; you have paid 20 per cent. before you sell them, and you will not get back the tax unless you raise their price 20 per cent. In the same manner, I say, that on that part of any person’s income which he saves and invests, and pays income tax on the returns, he is paying the tax twice. He cannot both spend the income and save it; but he is taxed as if he did both; he is taxed on it in the first instance just as if he spent it, and he is rated again on what he does spend, namely, its produce. He is taxed as if he used it for both purposes; but he can only use it for one, though he may use it for either. Therefore, I think you cannot claim the tax more than once.
Television is writing violence on that page.
That is a case which must arise in every attempt to redress the inequalities of taxation. If you relieve some of the payers, the Exchequer must either do without the money or must raise it in some other way. Those who have to make up the deficiency may complain, but that is not an objection to redressing a grievance, when the cases you are able to relieve are those in which the claim is strongest. Very much will depend upon the clearness and authority with which the real grounds for making the exemption were presented to the public mind, and with which, I think, they would perfectly well admit of being presented; the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he had to do it, would be perfectly competent to it. I think that they would admit of being so presented to the public, as to be made intelligible to reasonable people. To unreasonable people they would never be intelligible.