DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.22140#0441
ECONOMIC LEGISLATION, iS 15-41.
425
departments was worth the effort. I have known eminent poli-
ticians, who were not indifferent to the national defence, insist, up
to thirty years ago, that we should make an effort after the old
economy. But the sons of Zeruiah, who are described as mighty
men of valour, were too strong for them, and are too strong for
their descendants or successors. It is true that a Government
ought to do its best to reduce the public debt, and therefore
should always have an excess of revenue over expenditure, that
excess being strictly devoted to this end. But it is also true that
if one leaves a productive tax in the hands of a Government, it
never will be at a loss for objects to spend it on. This fact is
illustrated on the largest scale by the Government of the United
States. It is similarly, though not so plainly, illustrated by the
history of the modern income tax, as I hope to show in my next
lecture.
In 1815, there were, besides these taxes on income and malt,
others which were supposed to be on personal expenditure ; those
on houses and windows, on carriages, horses, and male servants,
on the use of hair powder and armorial bearings. Taxes on
houses have been generally defended by economists on the
ground that a man's house is a fair index of his income. It is
no such thing. It may be an index of another man's income,
and commonly is. It is constantly a very heavy tax indeed on
the process of earning an income. It would be much more fair,
if it were a tax on the building cost of the house, the ground
rent being separately assessed. Some few years ago, I was offi-
cially the tenant of a house in Charing Cross. The ground rent
was ^400 a year, the building rent ^/f 100. The parties whom I
represented paid house tax and local rates on the whole rent.
The ground landlord escaped everything but income tax. It is
plain to every one that a ground rent is the outcome of increasing
population, and increasing competition on those who are engaged
in various kinds of town industry. The actual income of the
occupier may very possibly be no more than his rent. To tax
him, then, on what is essential to his earning an income at all, is
either to make him pay a double income tax, or to compel him to
transfer the tax he pays in the first instance to his customer.
When house rents in towns were low, as they were in the days of
425
departments was worth the effort. I have known eminent poli-
ticians, who were not indifferent to the national defence, insist, up
to thirty years ago, that we should make an effort after the old
economy. But the sons of Zeruiah, who are described as mighty
men of valour, were too strong for them, and are too strong for
their descendants or successors. It is true that a Government
ought to do its best to reduce the public debt, and therefore
should always have an excess of revenue over expenditure, that
excess being strictly devoted to this end. But it is also true that
if one leaves a productive tax in the hands of a Government, it
never will be at a loss for objects to spend it on. This fact is
illustrated on the largest scale by the Government of the United
States. It is similarly, though not so plainly, illustrated by the
history of the modern income tax, as I hope to show in my next
lecture.
In 1815, there were, besides these taxes on income and malt,
others which were supposed to be on personal expenditure ; those
on houses and windows, on carriages, horses, and male servants,
on the use of hair powder and armorial bearings. Taxes on
houses have been generally defended by economists on the
ground that a man's house is a fair index of his income. It is
no such thing. It may be an index of another man's income,
and commonly is. It is constantly a very heavy tax indeed on
the process of earning an income. It would be much more fair,
if it were a tax on the building cost of the house, the ground
rent being separately assessed. Some few years ago, I was offi-
cially the tenant of a house in Charing Cross. The ground rent
was ^400 a year, the building rent ^/f 100. The parties whom I
represented paid house tax and local rates on the whole rent.
The ground landlord escaped everything but income tax. It is
plain to every one that a ground rent is the outcome of increasing
population, and increasing competition on those who are engaged
in various kinds of town industry. The actual income of the
occupier may very possibly be no more than his rent. To tax
him, then, on what is essential to his earning an income at all, is
either to make him pay a double income tax, or to compel him to
transfer the tax he pays in the first instance to his customer.
When house rents in towns were low, as they were in the days of