On this page

• Text (1)

  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.

  • 

    December 25, 1852.] THE LEADE R. 1233

• 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.

    ' The !I (L)Eceased> 1 Obt7i>G'Et Iprss^...

    count this result as one of the merits of the defeated budget . Most of the improvement * above mentioned may "be considered as Virtually effected by the retiring cabinet ; for to propose 6 uchPSs to effeet them . No-riticcessow dare stop sbOrt of thai which' these men delated themselves ready to / do . If we hear Again of an ' oppressed mercantile M ** y , of wasteful fliid inefficient ; dbekyai-ai , of defective ![ totfl mlskrrirfgea' public accounts- of tea duties obstinately maintained , of an income-tax which cruelly ; appljeMp i ki ^ omes of pneqoal nature and qfl ^ ects , the same unbending rule of exaction , we shall at least

    know where to find men who . whatever their faults i- , ;« :: >! -: ' ¦ ¦ > " > .-y " ! ' ' <' ¦ ! ¦•' ¦ '' t * I ' ' ' .. i '> i ' i •' ' ' ¦ -J [ ' > i ) . : i U t or errors , are ready to granple with these , particular evils ! ^ or . can reform stop liere . The ' principle § requisite to iiefencf' tfye cnanges the late Administratiqn would have made , xvttt apply , and will be iapplied ^ much further . ^ Change in the right direction has commenced ; and all the inertia 6 f o & ce ( the real obstacle to ' improvehlen ^ cannot stop ' it . Mr . Disraeli ' s was emphatically &' budget of transition , and in that character , ^ tn ^ iigii '^ 'd eadj ' it ' yei ' speak ^ tn /' ' ' Our tribute thus , willinglyrendered to , ' tlie excellences of the budgetj we turn to its faults " . ' We . may

    dispatch at once that demerit , which consisted in its changes being in grea £ part only seini ^ abolitions . .. Had the taxes on malt and hops been wholly repealejd , considerable establishments woui < l have been < jigpei ) scd with , while under toe proposed plan tiie entire ' charge of management must have been incurred for a collection ox nalt , tfi § , amount , -kven napre—to nave . abolished the very machinery of the tax , w ' duld"fyavo . been a securitv against its re-imposition , such , as the mere . n - ! ii ; , l !¦ " !¦) ¦ SnT"fJ '' ! - ¦ < i \ r L-: * -rj a \ 'ZlH ICjAlTT . : '(! # 7 , HV r reduction of the tax could never afford agamst the reestablishment . of the old i * ate .

    Itis , no ; f * ov < elty , f o . say , „ that . ; fcb , 9 lat ; e jbudget , = with much in , it tp , jbe approved ,, w , as ruined , by , ; the ! afctqwp * to substitut e an . inc ^ e , a « ed housertfl * jfor ,, one ,-haif of , thfe maj ' iwtax ; ,., ptjier . faults mj ^ h ^ jfeavejjaesn b ' prjne with or remedied ^ , bu ; fc this . . ^ tal ,,. Pefpre , , we discuss these contrasted ta ^ es , 1 ^^ ^^ us inquire , how it ; ,, became necessary to , oppose them ; to e » qh . pther ,., If a , reduction ,, of the malt-tax was necessary as acolpurablecpp ^ pensa-tipn for the withdrawal of agricidtural protection , does it follow that an increased house-tax should have been selected to supply the deficiency ? Town and country were expressly set against each other by this proposition ; and . nothing cpul , d justify the risking of defeat on such a . point but the , impossibility of avoiding it .,

    The loss , pn the malt-tax waa estimated at two-anda-half millions . Now , exclusive of the device of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer , this loss could only have been mefc by additional cttstoma and exciae duties ,- *—or in part by an extension of the legacy duties to real property , —pr by , a sufficient extengion of the' income-tax . But the first 1 of , these alternatives is inconsistent , with the ! established doctrines of freo-trade . Tho second ami third would have been merely laying on the land , in nnothejc foran , taxes wtrich were professed to be taken oil ' by reducing , the malt-tax ; for it must bo remoinbered that if a distinction of incomes for purposes of taxation was to be admitted , the chief increase of tlie iii / ooxno-tax to nioet tho reduction of the malt-tax must ha , vo fiilleu On real property . ,

    Tlwr Clmn ( 5 Qllor , of the Exchequer , then , 'hod little choice but to iaevcuso the housd-tiix , for any other device , would , either ; bnvo : been resisted by thb ¦ co mlnorcial nud JbVeo-tnulo majority , if he took , one course ; or it wquW ljavc ; struck mwhyfvom him hia own supporters , who looked to . him for aomo sort of compensation , if ho took , tlm other . ' ' TJ 10 Q (\ u < t fitiuuly thus : —Land hnM long been believed to bo unduly fttVourecl in our lisoal i iu-rm % cniont « Wluithor tiuisi bo ! trub . or . not ( which , on the whole , nobody : can- .-lulourly ; ;( Jipw ) i . laml trios fx > luiop ami

    tuteiu . 1 tho tuLvautu ^ o . ' Trado and labour have lately thrown oil" undue burdens . Land trios to . tjiilcct n <; hjnig « in luxation intended to retrieve tho ' . stuntling * it bpUovo ;» ., itw { lf , to havo loHti Trado 1 roaistri . Tho Gpvornttiiuut titke . il the ' , . sido of land , and fails iit tho lifctumptt > 'i ) h ( t \ HyatnmniOUUiH'to a ( lend lock * witliout ovfta . jyk'ldiug ; us from the tnitastropho tho moans of future ! . giuldiiMiccji ! Only o » o tiling in cRi'tiiin ^ that in tho njitlut oil ; all ( kit- gitip iu ^ dnrkuesK 011 fcho Hubjeof , ; JariOrtt , tiiK ,+ j » aV eirfc hrnl oleetom believe land to lmvi > * b ; eu < Jy rtci lKiiiJiy aUvntitiijcfeH ,, that they rusoliibely l'C ^ lwt nnyi , ji < i < li ( . i ( m to thtMifn >> fi n ' -

    Thin , however , i , s stating tho mutter according-to i the pri »»( Hj > l « H ifenoniHycuiinait , and it ia iw ^ ccwHul-y ho to Ktutc it , in ( ndim to uliow how the exiHtinrg i IniHouild ny « l ^ mhringH , its ( jlf i *» to e ! idtrom ( i ( Hffic . dltios . I ^» l ; wo objocb to this whole tr ^ atvnient Of tluv Subject . ! Why ( liu ( , inguitili betwenn'liuul and tnwle at idl P It w all < H | uu ) Ly . property j > ro ( jetrt « d hy t-lui Htute , nnrt Hhoiild be liublo alike , mid only alike , eiich us property uiono , to its . sham of th «» eos < ,. Thin Ixidgot , like nil before it , lm » been lift * nod , diucutjHed , mij ) ported , oppowotl , and

    overthrown without one single reference to the question which lies at the foundation of the whole subject , — does any class pay more or less than its fair share of the common expenses ? The only questions , whatever their form , are at bottom , either , shall we pay more under the , new budget than j before ? or , are we , strong enough , right or , wrong , to make or prevent an alteration , for .,: or ,, , against ourselves ? : Mr . Disraeli failed , not because ; he was , either right or wrong , but because , on a imps . t obscure subject , he . attempted a change in favour of a particular , class , which , that plasa was not strong enough to enable him to carry . This eventful contest between the house-tax and the maltTtax leads to an examination of both .

    Eminent , economists say that the house-tax , is a fair tax , ! and the . reason given is , that ^ he rent a . man pays is , < 5 om . mpnjy , a fan *! index of his income From this opinion ! yi'e entirely dissent ; the Tent a man pay 3 is no trt ^ e : gauge © £ his income ; his income is no true gauge of . his , obligation to the , State . . 1 According to these > economists , the house , is not taxed merely , as a bo ^ se , but as a . gnugq . of , income ; any other item of expenditure has , just as good a , title to be taxed ,, , if only it be fixed on ps such a , ^ i ] ge , — say , clothes or food . But taxes on both clothes and food have been abolished by , force of consequences , ; and of public qpinion resulting ftom thero > whichnpthing could aqesisfc . ¦ Every reaBpn ; which , opposes the taxing

    of food i and clothes ,, equally ,, opposes the taxing of habitations . If , breads ca ] icp , antl ; broadcloth be matt ^ r ^ iof expenditure , . 8 Oi Ms . ^ nt . , If the taxing of cplicp in any . 9 ^ ., its mate v nals . - : or , processes , . interferes withthe r indiustiry which prpduees that article ,, so . does the taxing , of rent interfere with the profits of house property . If the taxing of corn took away so much of the earnings of the country as to restrict the employment of those who fabricated clothes , through the scantiness of the remainder of those earnings , so does the taxing of rent likewise diminish the fund which shjould be devoted to the consumption of other articles , and so diminishes the demand for labour . The parallel is complete ; and it holds , whether the tax fall eventually on the occupier or the owner .

    Houses are unfortunate in their relation with the national exchequer . Bricks , timber , glass , all the chief materials of houses , have been highly taxed , and the taxes have been takea off ; that is , the owners of existing houses have paid for them perhaps 25 per cent , more than houses quite as large and good can now be bought for ; and this not through any natural consequence of the progress of art , industry , intelligence , or morals , but by the mere waywardness of an artificial policy , without natural rule or basis . Through other changes these capricious devices may any day attack houses again , or may exempt them perchance from even equitable charges . ' All depends on the chance of guessing , and of who may have to guess .

    lleht is not a fair index of income : it bears no uniform ratio to it . In the recent ; debate , Mr . Humo read to the House a statement founded on inquiry , the purpose of which was to show that , on fche whole , the higher classes spend a much smaller proportion of their income in rent than the lower ones ; and that , consequently , a tax proportionate pa rent falls' ihuch the heaviest on those who are least able to bear it , and who are under , no corresponding oblig ation to bear it . T \\ g statement , which seems chiefl y to apply to London , may be tabulated us follows :-r-JTo usually A tax of 1 » . fid . Andihc tax If a poison ' s spends in thd pound would take incomo lio , iu-vwit . ; would bo of his Income a : 4 ' , & x . d .

    100 ... 'JO ... 1 1 Q 0 . ... 1 J-percent . ' 1 ; 0 OO ... KK ) ... 4 2 10 0 ... $ ¦ . 10 , 000 . 1 . 500 ... 12 10 0 ... if „ , . 'i (> , 000 .. „ . ¦ ¦ ¦ 10 < K ) ... 2 f > 0 (> .., i The lioiiHo-tnx , then , in thi ^ vicW , ia n bad incoinet « Jx—» -i » n -income-tnix graduated in tin ! wrong direction . This view of the subject , founded on livcrugeft , howevct ) < onviiicing , < loes not nhow tho fall magnitude ot thoi « rr « v . ¦¦ An average in consistent with great inuqiitUitics in tho ( niitntitiCB from -which it Jh deduced ; and in every oIiikh great ineqnalitieH exist in tho rsttio between income and rent . Of this fiict any person iiiny witisly himselt' who will only review the cftMdH

    within bin own iirquaintunee i' he will lind mien of large iiuiomo living in Hinall housoK or iti npiiitinent * , iirvd widows Mti » iignling for u living l > y wouiih of a liijrhlyrenidd hou * t > . Het \ ve <; n thene extremes are cranes in every , vivrl « tyi Of two men with equal incomeR , < m « hftH ( I largo inmilyv the other 11 mnuH one , and tho houno ofi (! iu ; h in proportionate , not ^> bin income , hut to the number Wi hi « ' 'children ; and no of every divunftty of cinMimfltanee , pui-Huit , and dispoHitiou . Now ; it ) \ U not 01 % n * iti nkattor of justice , l > tib of suf « ity , thut tho pfleet of mich 11 tax in to bo y averages , hut by hiHtuueeH , and ehiedy , hy instiwieoH of wrong . To a man who fceb that ho is being ruined by taxes , it in no answer

    that his class are on the average but lightly burdened ; his resentment and the discontent of others are kindled by the injustice of his own particular case : while , on the other hand , the man accidentally favoured by any plan of taxation , gives the Government no thanks and no support for it , to counterbalance the dissatisfaction of him who obviously suffers . Averages are convenient instruments of thought , but they are often very deceptive and dangerous bases of action .

    Rent , then , is no true gauge of income . In former papers we have shown that income is no true gauge of property , while , however , property is the chief true gauge 6 f the obligations of the individual to the State . We have here , then , two false ratios , one superimposed on the other . Rent is falsely taken as hearing a constant ratio to income , and inconie is falsely taken as bearing a constant ratio . to property . No wonder that , in myriads df instances the result is to falsify and confuse all such relations of taxation as the common senso of men requires , and to leave on the mind of the taxpayer an indignant sense of wrong .

    But why go through this double and distorting process of inference ? Almost every writer on the subject begins , and rightly so ^ with the postulates , that taxation is pay merit for service rendered , and that the service rendered is mainly , though not exclusively , proportioned to property . Then why not go to the property at once ? ; For two reasons , neither of them of any validity . ; 1 st . It would be difficult to assess the property . And yet see tho enormous difficulties and shamefully imperfect results of our present modes of assessment and

    taxation . Could any assessment of visible and tangible property be worse ? 2 nd . The taxation of property , as property , would tax much property that is not productive . Well , be it so . The question for the State is , not whether it is productive , but whether it is protected , and if so , at what cost . To seek an object like a house , which is assumed to bear a certain ratio to income , and through it to property , is merely to slide away covertly from the true question to one which sanctions an unfair distribution of the public burdens , and favours property at the expense of labour .

    If , then , we reject the house-tax , let us examine its antagonist , the malt-tax , of which Mr . Disraeli proposed to abolish one-half . But , in point of principle , a reason for abolishing one-half of such a tax is a reason for abolishing it altogether ; and if any excuse is to bo found for keeping one-half , while the other is given up , it is in the nature of that heterogeneous , unquiet , and incoherent system which we call our system of finance . We may give up half , because we may think we can get so much from some other quarter ; we may retain the other half , because we do not know bow to replace it . Right and wrong , however , seems to have had nothing to do with such a question .

    If everybody objects to an increased house-tax , nobody seems to wish for a reduced malt-tax ; a fact which a Chancellor of tho Exchequer iriight easily have foreseen , and with which lie should have laid his account . This indifference to a diminution of the malt-tax seems to nriae from three causes : — 1 st . Thanks to our financial philosophy , such as it is , nobody seems certain to whom the benefit of the reduction of tax Will accrue ; 2 ndly , Tht- reduction , at most , would bo small in it * ellect , nobody of authority on snch a question estimating it at more than about a farthing per quart of beer ; and 3 dly , This small advantage Would bo felt by but a part of the population ; nil teetotallers , professed and unprofeHsed , and the greater part of ' oiir

    women and children , use , some , 110 malt liqrior nt all , mid others , very little of it . But 'if few expected to profit , by the reduction of the malt-tax , multitudes knew iTuit they would have to pay a bni'thensonuv house-tax ; : ( nd it , wiiH proved that the rediu'tiion in the price of beer and tea would , at the best , be very far from eompetfdh'ting the new impost . Of those who would . suffer uiost from these chungcn , ninny were now to be taxed directly for the first time , and felt no countervailing advantage ! ; rind of th ( wo there were enough to Tinseut'thc members for many boroughs , if such Hhould consent to l . he new taxation . Trade and labour refused Hie burden aftoinpted to bo thrown on them from Hie shoulders of the land .

    Tho argument , of Mr . Wnlpole on this sublet , requires examination , not no miu'li for its own sake , as bwause the true t ' i \ c . t » considerably illustrate the real condition of the malt-tax question , and lead to other considerations . Thai ; gentleman assorts that ,, in 1750 , when the duty on malt was only ( 5 r / . per bushel , the consumption was five bushels of malt , per head per annum or" tho population ; that with raising tb » flut y the conmmnption fell gradually to two bushels per head per annum ; and ho argues , that to diminish the tax would restore the eotiKumption , increu . so the demand |" ,. r barley , and ko benefit tho fanner . Here ! h 1111 inconbidurato uho of the admitted principle , that dear-

    December 25, 1852.] The Leade R. 1233

    December 25 , 1852 . ] THE LEADE R . 1233

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), Dec. 25, 1852, page 13, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/cld_25121852/page/13/