According to the socialistic plan, since all industry would be run by the State, on state provided capital, there would be no demand for a man’s savings except for purely personal uses, no stocks and no bonds, no savings banks, except for the safe deposit of money and valuables.  All interest might then be forbidden; and a man would save merely for future use, or to pass on to others, not for the sake of drawing a further income from his savings.  All rent must then in fairness be forbidden also, except such payments as would be a fair return for improvements made, buildings constructed, with the cost of repairs, insurance, etc.  This would result in all land being owned by the users, and do away with landlordism.  The unearned increment would be so widely distributed that it would be needless, for purposes of equalizing distribution, to bother with it, though it might still be appropriated by the State as a means of increasing its revenue.  This scheme would make it impossible for any one to live without earning his livelihood, except during such periods as his accumulated earnings would tide him over.  It would, indeed, lessen the incentive to saving; but if it were buttressed by the provision of fair salaries for all and by universal insurance against illness, accident, old age, and death, there would no longer be much need of saving.  This social order would be eminently just, leaving only such inequalities in wealth as would result from the differences in productive efficiency of different men, coupled with a moderate right of inheritance.  Its practicability, however, hinges upon the general practicability of socialism, which must remain for the present an open question. [Footnote:  F. W. Taussig, Principles of Economics, chap. 46; chap. 66, sec. 5; chap. 64, radical change as this lies beyond the range of immediate possibilities]

(d) The right of inheritance and gift, which we have had to mention as aggravating other sources of inequality, needs, as matters are at present, drastic curtailment.  The tax must not, indeed, be heavy enough to encourage spendthrift living and lessen thrift, or to cut too deeply into the capital necessary for carrying on business.  But a carefully devised tax can escape these dangers; and it is plainly not best for society, or for the heirs themselves in most cases, that they should have irresponsible use of large sums of money which they have not earned in a world where millions are starving, physically, mentally, and spiritually, for lack of what money can provide.  If, however, the plan last outlined is ever carried into effect, there will be no need of restricting the right of inheritance; even the alternative plan would require little attention to inheritance after present inequalities had been approximately leveled, as there would then be little opportunity for large accumulations.  A sharply graded inheritance tax may therefore be looked upon as a now necessary but temporary expedient.[Footnote:  F. W. Taussig, Principles of Economics, chap. 54, sec. 5; chap. 67. secs. 5, 6.] We may conclude with the consideration of four special problems that are related, in some aspect, to the conceptions of equality and privilege.