(4.viii.7) The several species of property, which, in the ordinary and coarse application oflanguage, pass under the name of income, are exceedingly different. This gives occasion to aquestion, whether it is equitable to levy the same rate of tax upon all incomes. The question,however, in what proportion taxes ought to fall, is rather a question of general policy, than ofpolitical economy; which, in regard to taxes, confines itself to two questions: first, on which ofthe three original shares of the annual produce, rent, wages, or profits, a tax falls: and next,whether it operates unfavourably on production. As this question, however, is generallyintroduced into books on political economy, it is proper here to point out the way to its solution.
(4.viii.8) The grand distinction of incomes, as regards this question, seems-to be, the valueof them. All property may, with trifling exceptions, be regarded as income. But the value ofincomes depends upon two circumstances: first, upon what is called their amount, as 100 l. perannum or 1000 l. per annum; secondly, their permanence and certainty. Thus the value of aman's property is ten times as great, if he has 1000 1. a year, as if he has 100; but that only if thepermanence and security are equal; for if 100 l. a year is secure for ever, while 1000 l. a year isonly to endure for a few years, the 100 l. a year will be the more valuable property of the two.
That, on the occasion of imposing a tax, property is to be estimated, according to one of theelements of its value, and not according to all of them, is a proposition which ought not to beadmitted except on very substantial grounds.
(4.viii.9) Let us suppose, that one man's income is 100 l., the rent of land; that another man'sincome is 500 l., the salary of his office, depending not only upon his life and health, but in somedegree upon the pleasure of his employers. The first will be worth 30 years' purchase; the last, incertain circumstances, not worth more than six. The real value of the property of these two menwill, in these circumstances, be the same; and upon the principle of equal burthens upon equalproperty, the tax upon these ought to be the same.
(4.viii.10) It is true that, if the tax, proportional to the amount, is paid for 30 years upon the100 l. and six years upon the 500 1. the amount of tax will be the same. But this, as a principle oftaxation, is liable to this objection; that it excludes from consideration that, to which allconsideration should tend, individuals, and their feelings.
(4.viii.11) There is another point of view in which we must consider the question. Theperiod of enjoyment of the man whose income is 100 l. in rent, may be as short as that of the man whoseincome is 500 l. in salary; the life of the first may not be worth a greater number of years' purchase than the salary or the second.
(4.viii.12) In this way, undoubtedly, all incomes may be regarded as measured by the life ofthe individual.
(4.viii.13) It may also be affirmed, that, in like manner as the income of the man, who drawsrent, passes to his descendants; so the income of the man who draws salary, passes to hissuccessors. Strictly speaking, the two species of income are both equally permanent: the rentflows in a permanent stream, through one generation after another, and so does the salary. Itwould follow, therefore, that if rent were taxed at one rate, salaries at another, there would betwo perennial streams of income, taxed in different degrees, the one more, the other less heavily.
(4.viii.14) This is true, and the only reason for such difference is, the difference of those whosucceed to the incomes. In the case of income derived from land or from capital, the incomepasses to a man's children, to the persons most dear to him: in the case of salaries, it passes tothose, with whom the man has no connexion. Whether this reason is sufficient, requires to beconsidered. There can be no doubt that in regard to feelings, in regard to the happiness of theindividuals, it makes a great difference, whether their incomes are to pass to their children attheir deaths, or to their successors, in their offices, or their professions. On this score it wouldseem to be required by the principle of all good legislation, that a corresponding differenceshould be observed in the imposition of taxes.
(4.viii.15) This, however, would be a step, it is said, towards the equalizing of fortunes. Itwould lessen the incomes of the descendants of the owners of permanent incomes, in order to increasethose of the descendants of persons with life incomes. This is liable to the same objections asraising the scale of taxation, in proportion to the scale of income; taxing commodities, forexample, higher to the man of 1000 l., than to the man of 100 l. a year. It would lessen tilemotive to make savings, by lessening the value of great accumulations. It is to be inquiredwhether this allegation is well founded.
(4.viii.16) A tax, to operate fairly, ought to leave the relative condition of the differentclasses of contributors the same, after the tax, as before it. In regard to the sums required for the service ofthe state, this is the true principle of distribution.
(4.viii.17) In the case of incomes of different permanency, what does leave the relativecondition the same?
(4.viii.18) It is quite clear, that the prospect for a man's children is one part of that condition.
If a tax so operates upon two classes, as to reduce the condition of the children of the one classlower, as compared with the condition of the children of the other class, than it would otherwisebe, it does not leave the relative condition of those two classes the same.
