==============+============+============
| Per cent | Per cent
Income | of persons | of income
--------------+------------+------------
Below $214 | 70.7 | 33.0
$214 to $714 | 25.8 | 34.9
Over $714 | 3.5 | 32.1
--------------+------------+------------
than $214 a year, the minimum taxable income. It shows the poverty of
the mass of the people as well as the concentration of wealth among
the few rich. In the United States, where the natural resources have
been so much richer than in Germany, a similar table would probably
show a much smaller proportion under the Prussian minimum, but on the
other hand it would probably show a greater concentration of income in
the hands of a few. Europe has as yet no billionaire. The great
fortunes of the United States have been made possible by the unrivaled
opportunities for the exploitation of rich natural resources, the
appropriation of natural monopolies, and to special privileges and
opportunities in manufactures and transportation. The importance of
monopoly privileges in the distribution of wealth is well shown by the
results of an investigation made in 1892 by the New York Tribune into
the sources of the fortunes of millionaires. It was undertaken to show
that protection was not the main cause; but while it proved this, it
showed clearly that most of them were built up on monopoly. “Of the
4,047 millionaires reported, only 1,125, or 28 per cent, obtained
their fortunes in protected industries…. About 78 per cent of the
fortunes were derived from permanent monopoly privileges, and only 22
per cent from competitive industries unaided by natural and artificial
monopolies…. Furthermore, if the size of fortunes is taken into
account it will be found that perhaps 95 per cent of the total values
represented by these millionaire fortunes is due to those investments 127
classed as land values and natural monopolies, and to competitive
industries aided by such monopolies.”[43] It is essential to the
stability of our democratic institutions that all special privileges
be absolutely prohibited, and that monopoly be brought under strict
government control and regulation. Improper methods of wealth
accumulation should certainly be prevented.
The opposite question of poverty has already been discussed and some
of the causes of poverty pointed out. It will be sufficient here to
try to answer the question which has often been asked: Are the rich
growing richer and the poor poorer? Though the first part of the
question has just been affirmed, the second part may be denied. The
nineteenth century has witnessed a vast improvement in the condition
of the laboring man, who has shared in the increasing wealth which he
has helped to produce. Wages have steadily increased, the hours of
labor have been reduced, and the material well-being of the
wage-earner is greater today than it has ever been before. It has more
than once been pointed out by writers on this subject that with an
equal distribution of wealth no one would be well-to-do, while many
others insist that inequality in itself is a desirable thing. Greater
diffusion of wealth can come about only by very slow processes, and
permanent plenty can be secured only by a great increase in the
accumulations of capital and the efficiency of each worker. Any
suggested reform, therefore, that would weaken the motives to thrift
and industry must be rejected.