On Profit and Property

President Coolidge confronted the same impulse in his time to remove ownership and eradicate profit in the name of “equality” that is prevalent today. The egalitarianism of the French and Russian Revolutions, still lauded by those who were new to America, failed to produce the results of the earlier Revolution of 1776 not because of incompetence or inferior people. It was because the American Revolution was rooted in more ancient principles and timeless truths of work, law, ownership and reward. The experiment in discarding property and profit had been tried in America, in its earliest settlement by William Bradford and the brave souls who disembarked at Plymouth Rock in 1620. As Bradford records in his Journals, they nearly starved to death under that “communal” experiment. This trial-run in socialism was found incapable of producing the moral or material results which a system that protects ownership of property and profit for work done accomplishes whenever and wherever observed (“Of Plymouth Plantation” pp.115-6).

President Coolidge, well-aware of that experience among the pilgrims, knew of its value in whatever age one lives. In an address right before the 1924 election, he explains the wisdom of ownership and profit, “When service is performed, the individual performing it is entitled to the compensation for it. His creation becomes a part of himself. It is his property. To attempt to deal with persons or with property in a communistic or socialistic way is to deny what seems to me to be this plain fact. Liberty and equality require that equal compensation shall be paid for equal service to the individual who performs it. Socialism and communism cannot be reconciled with the principles which our institutions represent. They are entirely foreign, entirely un-American. We stand wholly committed to the policy that what the individual produces belongs entirely to him to be used by him for the benefit of himself, to provide for his own family and to enable him to serve his fellow men.” The notion that an individual has an entitlement to own the reward of his own effort, not the work of another is increasingly a foreign concept. It is no less valid a truth.

As Coolidge understood what seems lost to our day, the compensation of profit and ownership goes to the one who earns it. It is not the entitlement of the state to claim ownership of an individual’s property, redistributing to the idle in the name of “equality.” Such is an insult to the hard-working. The principle of service obligates a person to love his neighbor, providing from what he owns to help others. It is not the role of government to dispense favors with the property of individuals. As Coolidge would say again on other occasions, “There is just one condition on which men can secure employment and a living, nourishing, profitable wage, for whatever they contribute to the enterprise, be it labor or capital, and that condition is that someone make a profit by it…When you deny the right to profit, you deny the right of a reward to thrift and industry.”

On the Distribution of Wealth

Speaking at the Associated Industries Dinner in Boston on December 15, 1916, Calvin Coolidge, Lieutenant Governor of Massachusetts at the time, said, “It is our endeavor to extend equal blessings to all. It can be done approximately if we establish the correct standards. We are coming to see that we are dependent upon commercial and industrial prosperity, not only for the creation of wealth, but for the solving of the great problem of the distribution of wealth. There is just one condition on which men can secure employment and a living, nourishing, profitable wage, for whatever they contribute to the enterprise, be it labor or capital, and that condition is that some one make a profit by it. That is the sound basis for the distribution of wealth and the only one. It cannot be done by law, it cannot be done by public ownership, it cannot be done by socialism. When you deny the right to a profit you deny the right of a reward to thrift and industry.”

Annual Message to Congress, December 3, 1924

                  Image

President Coolidge’s first Annual Message to Congress delivered the previous year, December 6, 1923

President Coolidge would open his second Annual Message to Congress by assessing the pervasive destruction of unsound economics, declaring,

          The fallacy of the claim that the costs of government are borne by the rich and those who make a direct contribution to the National Treasury can not be too often exposed. No system has been devised, I do not think any system could be devised, under which any person living in this country could escape being affected by the cost of our government. It has a direct effect both upon the rate and the purchasing power of wages. It is felt in the price of those prime necessities of existence, food, clothing, fuel and shelter. It would appear to be elementary that the more the Government expends the more it must require every producer to contribute out of his production to the Public Treasury, and the less he will have for his own benefit. The continuing costs of public administration can be met in only one way — by the work of the people. The higher they become, the more the people must work for the Government. The less they are, the more the people can work for themselves.

To restore the proper ownership of what people earn was what drove Coolidge and Mellon to insist upon Congress cutting rates across the board, fighting to eliminate penalties like the estate tax and genuinely reducing expenditures (remember this was before baseline budgeting). While the Revenue Act of 1924 retained the tax on estates (to Coolidge’s disappointment), it would continue the decrease of rates from 58 to 46% at the top and down to 1.125% at the bottom. For Coolidge, tax and expenditure reduction was a moral obligation. Higher and higher rates bore inescapable costs on everyone. Though the Federal minimum wage would not arrive until 1933 ($0.25/hr), it (like all taxes on what is earned) only harm everyone, employer and employee, rich and poor alike, shackling the future to government spending habits. Higher rates, as they had become in Coolidge’s lifetime, were an avoidable source of division for what should be a United States. As President Coolidge knew all too well, feeding class warfare as the basis for tax policy would only spread suffering and prevent the return of economic health.