On this page
-
Text (2)
-
Untitled Article
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
accurately proportioned to the number of persons under his care , and the amount of property in his possession . Taxation ought not to follow the proportion of profit or income , for that is not the proportion of the expense incurred by all for each , and is , therefore , not the true basis of repartition of expense . A business or a house just as much requires the means of protection and justice , although . yield no profit , avid the other . rent . Assimilate in thought taxation to insurance , and the whole matter becomes very clear .
Indirect taxation , not less expensive in its collection than direct , carries away from the tax-payer much more than enters the public Treasury . It deprives some of enjoyments they would otherwise reach , and it makes the reaching of them difficult to many more . Only of late have we learned , from the unexpected effects of remission of indirect taxation , how severe its unseen consequences have really been . Disturbance of the natural course of industry is also to be ascribed to indirect taxation ; and the disturbance is equally injurious when a tax is newly imposed , while it continues , and when , as an old tax , it is abolished : the difference being , that while an old tax continues , its effects are unobserved .
These effects are due to indirectness of taxation , and to the concentrated pressure of indirect taxation on a few articles , and not to mere amount . They are needless , or , at least , artificial aggravations of the natural and necessary cost of justice and protection . Indirectness renders taxation and its effects a science ; while there is no reason in the nature of this expense , more than in that of any other , for its effects being so complicated and abstruse as to inspire doubt , breed sects , and mock investigation , as the pseudo-science of taxation now does .
The principle that the contribution of each should be just his share of the charges incurred , leads to the establishment of two taxes—one on persons , the other on property ; the former proportioned to numbers , the latter to value . Leaving the personal tax for the present , visible and tangible property is the true subject of taxation ; and it should be taxed in the hands of its actual possessor at the time . Loans , bonds , mortgages , rent-charges , debts , bills , and intangible property of all kinds , are only representatives of property in other
hands , already taxed in those bauds , and therefore not to be taxed again . Property which may any day be seen by a servant , may be shown to an assessor without additional violation of privacy . Conccalable property , but a small part of the whole , may avoid taxation ; but if it does , it ought to pay five or ten times the tax it would have paid , if for purposes of litigation or police t \ r > action of the public authorities is ever required respecting it . Money , actual coin , may remain untaxed with little loss to the state , and much convenience of management , except where it is the direct object of
commerce . Such a system , pressing equally but lightly on everything , would leave enterprise and industry perfectly free . No paths or objects would be interdicted to them by being made special objects of taxation . Nor would the state of any man ' s affairs be disclosed , since ho would only bo taxed on his tangible and material possessions , irrespective of any rights or obligations by which his circumstances might be affected . On such a plan the fiscal debates of Parliament , would lie in a very narrow compass , and take but little time , ( riven the year ' s expense and the amount of assessable property , and the year ' s rate is settled at once .
Such is briefly the substance of our former articles ; we have to show in those which follow the application of the principles we have advanced to the taxation of Greuf , Uritain . Hut , first we , shall avail ourselves of the Report of the late Committee on ( bo Income Tux , to state the views of others , and in showing where we think them erroneous , to establish our own . * It , would be easv to fill all our space with extracts
from the evidence of official persons and of others , exhibiting the uncerl ainty , vexatious character , and fueilitien both for evasion and oppression which characterize our present , system of taxation . It ; seems it would not be easy in them respects to change ; for the worse . We purpose , however , to confine this paper to questions of princip le ; f . o discuss them it ; will he sullioienl , to notice u few representative opinions .
Mr . IJubbnge starts from flic principle Uin . t "all taxation is in ti large sense intended for the protection ol person and property" ( 541 S ) . Me . says , that , " property ought to pay for ifs protection in proportion to its amount" ( 5448 ) that , " he looks upon Uic total sum received by means of the fjixesas a sum to be expended in the protection of person mid property during the
twelve months for which it is raised" ( 5451)—that " taxation is payment for services done" ( 5448 )—and that " you should not charge the man more than it costs to protect him" ( 5593 ) . The application of these just and intelligible views is , however , marred at once by assuming that " the most practicable way of arriving at the amount" of the property ( which " ought to pay in proportion to its amount for its protection" ) " is to see what is the value it produces , or what it would let at" ( 5448 ) . But is it so ? What would Chatworth let for ? and what would the value of Chatworth lefc for , if laid out in workmen ' s houses ? A public-house in London lets in great part by the number o f barrels of beer it sells per Aveck ; a shop according to the probable advantage of
its sitnation . There are objects of great value incapable of producing revenue , and which could hardly be let at all . What would Del Piombo ' s " Resurrection of Lazarus , " at the National Gallery , let for ? or the " Greek Slave , " or the Ninevite winged lions , or the drawing-room at Northumberland House ? Again , there are objects producing a great revenue which could not be let . Who would rent a London physician ' s head ? Again , that may be let which produces no profitable return whatever . How much is annually given for rights of shooting ? Income , then , by no means follows the ratio of property , although property in an important sense is often indispensable to income . What a thing will or will not let for is no certain measure of its value .
The contrary , however , being assumed , it is further assumed that all incomes ought to be taxed alike , for that all equal incomes—not now equal proper ties—cost the community equal sums for their protection ( 5593 ) , But let us look at cases . A merchant has had half-a-dozen adventures at sea , with very chequered results , and the balance in his favour at the end of the year is 1000 J . A landowner derives 1000 Z . per annum from property worth 30 years ' purchase , and covering half a parish . A manufacturer derives 1000 £ . a year from some improved machinery worth 5000 Z . A conveyancer earns 1000 Z . per annum in his chambers , with 500 Z . worth of
books and furniture . A legatee annuitant receives 1000 £ . per annum in virtue of a nakerl , intangible right , without property or effort at all . Can it possibly cost the state the same sum to protect the immediate possessions of each of these ? Or , to take a converse set of cases . In three contiguous dwellings sifc three persons—a writer of popular books , who earns 400 ^ . a year ; a working wa tchmaker , who earns 120 Z . a year ; and a widow who lives on an annuity of 701 . n year . There is nothing in the pursuits or circumstances of these to prevent each having exactly the same amount of property requiring protection , although their incomes arc so different .
We think , then , Mr . Babbage s two assumptions , that equal properties produce equal incomes , and that equal incomes cost the state equal sums for their protection , may be safely set aside as an incorrect foundation for a system of fiscal policy . It is alleged ( 54 * 75 ) that although it would be right to . set aside a certain share of the ' property of the country for the expenses of the government ,, if it could be done at once and for ever , yet that " if you tax
property by a succession of annual taxes , you must tax it upon its successive produce . " This by no means follows in the sense required by Mr . Babbuge ' s conclusion . Although the tux might be paid out «/' the annual produce , it would not follow that it should be paid in ' proportion to it . He is misled by the ambiguity of his own word " upon , " and by bin incorrect assumption thai the value of the thing protected in measured in all cases by the annual income from it .
Hut , then , although he had at , first , taken the income only as the nearest , approximation to the value of the propert y ( 5157 ) , lie says afterwards , that "the revenue is the tiling to tax" ( 54 ( 55 ) , and that , " ( . lie produce in the thing protected" ( 5 ( 55 ( 5 ) . Hut the stale often has to protect property Iroin which no income arises , as tin empty house , a fail in ; . !; manufactory , or an unsuccessful ship . Then as to mutters which do not even profess to be sources of inconn Mr . Babbage and Mr . Wnrburton both object , (;< > ( axing pictures and articles of fu . ste generally , lest , the enjoyment of the owner . should be marred by flu- recollection Unit they occasion him the
cost of ; i tax ( r >( J 7 ^ ti and 518 : i ) But , 1 , 1 m principle would go ( o leaving untaxed the architectuml decorations of it house , the embellishments of pleasure-grounds , the means of scientific and literary enjoyment when distinct , from views of" profit , and the entire apparatus of luxury and oven of comfort , down to the limit of necessaries , below which Mr . Mill , in bin turn , and for quite us good resinous , would levy no fax ( 51558 , »\ c ) . Hut , no reason in given why this extensive duns of possessions , the great object , of worldly effort und ambition , should be protected at the expense of the rent of the community , and not at thai of their proper ownora .
A principle occasionally peeps out indistinctl y , which most probably underlies nearl y the whole of the on nions expressed by Mr . Babbage and others , that in " come is the proper subject of taxation ; it may perhaus be thus expressed : —That the protection a man enjoys and for which he should pay , ought not to be estimated by his immediate possessions , but by the effect of G vernment upori . the whole of the circ umstances bv which he is surrounded , and that his interest in that effect is proportioned to his income . That is , to take a single thread of this tangled skein , a trades man in London deals with a manufacturer in Newcastle and makes a profit by it ; therefore part of his incomVtax is , to be paid because the Newcastle manufacturer , and the railway by which he receives his goods , are '
protected . But even m so simple a supposed case as this it should be shown that the tradesman always makes a profit , always makes the same profit , and that two tradesmen buying equal parcels of * goods always make equal profits—cases rarely to be made out , and probably quite as rarely occurring . Much more would it be necessary to show that income in all cases is mainly affected by Government , and that o ther circumstances do not much influence it where the action of Government remains unchanged . But this is attributing far too much to the action of Government . A miller gains 500 Z . per annum by grinding corn ; probably Iris income would vary comparatively little whether the
Government kept the country m a high state of order , or suffered it for a time o sink to the verge of anarchy . A manufacturer gains 500 £ . in a year by perfecting an article of fashion ; the next year its day has gone by , and he gains nothing : yet , whatever the Government did for him in one year , it did also in the other . The general and indirect effect of Government is , then , no reason for taking income as the measure of taxation . But we cannot admit the assumption on which this argument rests—viz ., that payment may be justly
required for indirect advantages . If a new line of omnibuses render my field eligible for building ground , am I to pay over part of the improved value to him who set it up ? If by draining # iy own field I rid my neighbour ' s house of fever , may I claim a share in what he saves out of his doctor ' s bill ? If the principle be admitted as to Government , why not as to other great influences ? May not Newton , Black , Watt , Arkwright , Lymington , Stephenson , and many more , claim to share in the vast accessions of wealth which their
science or practical skill have indirectly created ? It is easy to see why this principle is not admitted . There is no consentaneousness between the parties ; there is no possibility of ascertaining or measuring the obligation ; there is no possibility of foreseeing its extent or consequences . It seems for these reasons altogether as inadmissible in matters of government as of private life . An attempt is made to ascertain the relative interest of different classes in the Government by imagining the loss to each on its withdrawal : and here it is said that
the poor man has a greater interest in good government than the rich , and the professional than the landed m ; in . ' But so also has the widow , the fatherless , the decrepit , and , for his short remaining time , the aged , a larger interest than the hale , the prosperous , and all who can help themselves . The father of seven children has a greater interest than the father of one , the married man than the bachelor , the saver than the spendthrift , the man who wisely uses and enjoys the benefit * of society than the fool who neglects , or the . scoundrel who would Ik ; more in his element without them .
The argument- proceeds on n false footing . ' » 11 () other business of life , except under extreme pressure , do we pay according to the value of the thing to " *_ > or who could adequately pay a . successful physi c "" Or if a physician cure a ' father of a large family , m ' (! paid better than in the ease of a lone and IricndlesH bachelor ? If two fields be drained , and twice as much he added by the operation to the value of one as to U «
other , are the labourers paid twice as well ? I' 1 'r " . '' even if the value of Government foeaeh of us cuiihl {><) ascertained ( which if , cannot ) , it would be no vule ^» the apportioning our quofii to i's cost , unless we '" 1 " in this case from the rules which justly govern every other . It in Mm misehievoun departure fioin KinnH ami universal princip les of conduct , which chielly i » ders Government , in all its departments , u need eh .
mystery . - (] ' During the proceedings of the committee , . son"' * Mint incomes from land would sullcr less lliaI ' | ^ ' j from professions by a , decay of Government ,. ' 'V () i || ( i so , it , would not , follow that professional incomes * i <> ^ pay the most . Hut it is not , ho . L " ' < llTlv < ' ., saleable value from cloiiHil-y of populiitio" mill «« ' < - ' •> _ of tenure ; winch density and security wood j '" h . mininh in times of disorder , and leave the hnui « less ; while , professional ability of many kmdn wul 1 ' free to wuk , uud cwtuin to Jlud , unoLhcr hold ,
Untitled Article
994 THE LEADER . [ Saturday ,
Untitled Article
* Wo purpose also to pvo an extended notice of tho very valuable wul ex Jiiiuh ( iv ( i work of M . Kmilo < lo Girnrdin , mifitlod // Iwpot , and in fhocourmi of i (; to exhibit , <) ' <» luxation of Franco . Komo points in tho luxation of America muy ulso come undor review ua wo proceed .
-
-
Citation
-
Leader (1850-1860), Oct. 16, 1852, page 994, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse2.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1956/page/14/
-