The Press. — London, England, 1857-01-17 00:00:00

JANUARY 17, 1857. will attempt to retain the war tax of led. in the pound on the strength of the statute which, literally construed, would justify such retention. We cannot believe that any such attempt will be made. We cannot believe that Parliament would sanction it. We believe that the additional 9d. in the pound will be given up, and with it nine millions of revenue. But will even this now satisfy the country ? According to our estimate the net revenue, with this reduction, would still be equal to 59,000,0001 A considerable surplus, unless the estimates shc uld be much more extrava gant than can reasonably be anticipated, would remain. In what manner shall the sur plus be appropriated ? If the Legislature can be brought to decide upon the total abolition of the Income Tax, means need not be wanting to give effect to the resolve. It is not probable that at any time the Treasury will be in possession of a clear sur plus of 7,000,0001. If we wait until any Chancellor of the Exchequer can say I have hero seven millions available for the remission of the Income Tax, wo shall wait for an event never likely to occur. Whenever since 1842 there has been a surplus, it has been applied to the reduction of indirect duties, though often, as we have shown, without corre sponding benefit to the consumer. If the same system is to prevail, the Income Tax must be perpetuated. The only way to get rid of it is, to decide that it shall diminish by successive steps until it entirely ceases. If the public be really in earnest in desiring its abolition, there is no reason why it should not finally expire—according to the promise of Mr GLADSTONE—in 1860, when the 2,150,0001. of charge upon annuities will fall in. The tax, for example, might be reduced to 6d. in the pound in the present year, which would still leave a net revenue, as wo esti• mate, of 68,000,000/. ; and it might drop to 4d. in 1858 ; to 2d. in 1859 ; and expire altogether in 1880. If some such plan be not adopted, it is vain to expect that the Income Tax will ever be extinguished. When the war income tax is abolished Par liament will naturally have to consider the case of the war taxes imposed on articles of consumption. Fortunately, they are not heavy. The additional malt duty imposed by Mr. GLADSTONE in his Budget of May 8, 1854, did not answer expectation, owing to the great decrease in consumption. It added little to the Revenue, and has already expired. Of the other duties imposed, Mr. GLADRTONE levied (May 8, 1854) an additional 700,0001. on sugar, and Sir G. C LEWIS (April 20, 1855) further increased the sugar duties by 1,200,0001. At the same time Sir G. C. LEWIS added 150,0001. to the coffee duty. The tea duty, which, previous to Mr. GLAD STONE'S Budget in April, 1853, was at 2s. 21d. per lb., was at once reduced to Is. 10(1. per lb., and it was arranged that it should fall by suc cessive reductions till it reached Is. per lb. When Sir G. C. LEWIS brought forward his Budget (April 20, 1855), it had actually fallen to Is. ed. He imposed a war duty of 3d. extra, raising it to Is. ed. per lb., by which he estimated he should gain 750,0001. The additional taxes on sugar, coffee, and tea are those which the public may fairly ex pect to see reduced. The case of spirits stands on different grounds. The additional duties levied by Mr. GLADSTONE and Sir G. C. LEWIS amount alto gether, we suppose, to something near 2,00,000/. We cannot think it advisable that those duties should again be lowered, as from spirits the largest revenue may properly be ruised that they are capable of yielding. Whatever checks their immoderate use is a boon to the community at large. The war taxes, then, which the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER may be called on to reduce, independently of the Income Tax, are :-- Sugar (imposed May 8. 1854) Ditto (imposed April 20. 18.55) Coffee (imposed April •!0, Imm) 150,000 Tea (imposed April 20, 1815(5) X 2,800,000 THE PRESS. It would appear possible to combine this reduction with arrangements for the gradual reduction of the Income Tax, and its total abolition in 1860. Similar results may be brought out in another way. It has been shown that on the 31st of March, 1854, the last year of peace, the Revenue amounted to 54,025,0001., and the Expenditure to 51,171,0001., leaving a surplus of nearly three millions. Unfortunately that surplus will be about swallowed up by the in creased charges for interest on the new loans, and the fund for their redemption. But if the additional duty on spirits remains, there will be an increase of nearly two millions ; and the natural growth of the Revenue during the last three years has also to be taken into ac count. On the supposition that our expenditure is seduced to nearly the rate of the expenditure for the last year of peace ; end that all the war taxes, with the exception of the increased spirit duties, are abolished, wo may anticipate that the surplus which in 1853 Parliament was satisfied would exist for the reduction of the tea duty to ls. per lb., and for the entire extinction of the Income Tax in 1860, will be available still. If it becomes a question between the re duction of the tea duty from Is. 6d. to Is. per lb., and between the reduction and final aboli tion of the Income Tax, we think the public ought not to hesitate which to choose. It is doubtful whether a reduction of the tea duty lower than to Is. 6d. would benefit the con sumer until new sources of supply—a work of time—could be opened. In any financial calculations formed on the proposal to totally abolish the Income Tax, while extinguishing also the war duties on tea, coffee, and sugar, it might fairly be anticipated that in consequence of such large remissions of taxation the Revenue would show great elasticity. With the impetus given to industry consumption would increase, and the Exche quer would amply share in the benefits expe rienced by the community at large, and in its rising prosperity. Let us recapitulate : Supposing it be decided that the peace ex penditure of 1853, when the total amount was below 51,000,000/., he not—with interest on the new loans, and sinking fund for their• re demption —• raised above 54.000,0001., there will, according to the present scale of taxa tion, be a surplus of about 14,000,0001. The Income Tax realises, as near as may be, one million sterling for each penny in the pound. If reduced from 16d. to 6d., the CHANCELLOR of the'EXCHEQUER, with a reduction of 10,000,0001., would still have a clear surplus of 4,000,0001., and making provision for the drops in the Income Tax for the next two years, might arrange a margin for the reduction of the extra duties imposed on tea and sugar and coffee. Practically, perhaps, the choice may lie between Mr. GLansToNE's proposed reduc tion of the tea duties, and Mr. GLADSTONE'S promised reduction of the Income Tax. We think that, looking only to the glory of pre• sent boons, he promised far more than he could have had any reasonable prospect of performing. Mr. GLADSTONE took the grace to himself, and left the difficulty to his succes sors. It might be desirable to accomplish the proposed reduction in the tea duty till it reached Is. per lb., though we doubt whether the gradual reduction would sensibly benefit the consume►. But between such reduction and the extinction of the Income Tax we think the people ought not to hesitate. It is for them to choose. They can decide as they please. We have been mainly solicitous to place facts before them. The present reduc tion and eventual abolition of the Income Tax is perfectly practicable if they will it. First, they must insist on judicious and effi cient rather than costly peace establishments, and, next, that the Income Tax must be re served as a GREAT RESOURCE in time of war. If they fail to insist on these great principles when our whole financial system must be considered and revised, they are unlikely to find so favourable an opportunity again.—All we say is—Now, oa Navas ! 53 THE INCOME TAX. SIR JOHN PAKINGTON AT DROTTWICH. The Right Hon. Sir John l'akington, M.P., at tended on Monday a public meeting at Droitwich, convened for the Furpoie of considering " the pro priety of memorialising her Majesty on the present oppressive income tax, and of passing resolutions condemnatory of the tax and of its present mode of administration." The first resolution having been proposed by Mr. Priddey and seconded by Mr. Fardon— That the income•tax laws are, in their present form, unjust and oppressive, and ought to be speedily repealed, while the continuance of the tax, imposed for the support of the war. for two years after the restoration of pence is, in the opinion of the meeting, inconsistent and unsafe— SirJ. PAKINOTON addressed the meeting. Referring to the objectbins made by previous speakers against the continuance of the war tax, Sir John said, the additional tax had been imposed to defray the ex penses of the Russian war, and the act which em powered that increase laid it down that, considering the impossibility of winding up the accounts incident to the war immediately upon the restoration of peace, the extra tax should remain in force for twelve months after the sth of April next following the ra tification of peace : It so happened—he would not say it was anything more than a mere accident—but it so happened that the signing of the treaty of peace was postponed till a few days after the sth of April, and the practical result was that the increased tax would be prolonged for two years after the proclamation of peace. But they all felt that, though this might be carrying out the act according to the strict letter of the law, it was not in consonance with its spirit. And he agreed with them that the country had a right to demand that the spirit as well as the letter of the act should be respected. He was not surprised at the feeling which pervaded the country at large on this subject, as shown through the public newspapers, and he had no doubt that the general voice of the country would make it imperative on Parliament to take this view of the subject. The objections to the tax, however, were not confined to the war portion of it, and he was glad that it could not be imputed to him that it was from any momentary objection that he concurred in the opinions that had been expressed concerning it. Those opinions be had on former occasions publicly declared in the House of Commons when he had the honour of holding an office in her Majesty's Govern ment, 1111 d when Lord Derby's Government had desired to see the inequalities in the tax rectified. He concurred with Mr. Priddey that the owners of houses, and, he would add, of land, paid a great deal more than their proper pro portion ; for they paid on the tack rent. They not only paid on the revenue derived from the rropeity, but also upon that which was never realised. Then he was also ready to admit that the tax pressed harshly on those classes which were the possessors of life incomes, whether arising from trades or professions. He would, for instance, assume that an individual was in possession of an income of 5001. a year either from land or from money in the funds, and another derived a similar income from his trade or pro fession. Both paid the same amount of tax, but in the first case the taxpayer when he died left his land or his funded property to his children, while in the second the professional man or tradesman left nothing behind him. It was clearly the duty of the professional man or trades man to save something for the benefit of his family, or to insure his life with the same object, and the amount taken from him in the shape of income tax would go far to effect this. He had always thought and avowed his conviction, which he continued to uphold, that if it could possibly be done, some adjustment of the tax ought to be effected. He was aware that the answer to this was, that it would be im possible to arrange the tax so as to meet every case ; but that was no reason why no attempt at all should be made at a more equitable adjustment. The right hon. baronet then maclo a few remarks on the Per,ian and Chinese wars, upon which explana tions would doubtless he given by the Government upon the meeting of Parliament : The war with Persia was the subject of the most serious and threatening aspect, and was the one, moreover, os which they had the least information. They were not in formed, for instance, whether this war was the result of the policy of our Indian Government, or of her Majesty's Government, or whether its cost was to he defrayed from Indian revenues or from the revenues of England. Which ever it might be, he would follow out the saying that " Eng land cannot afford to have little wars." With regard to our attack on China, we had access to the fullest information through the published correspon dence which had passed between our plenipotentiary at Hong Kong, the Chinese Commissioner, and the British admiral. He (Sir John Pakington) had carefully read that correspondence, and he had read it with the deepest pain. He could not recollect any parliamentary papers connected with public affairs which he had read with such feelings of sorrow as those. He wished to be understood that he abstained from committing himself to any definite opinion upon this subject, for further explanation might yet be offered, but he hoped that on the meeting of Parlia ment some satisfactory explanations would he given, and that if we were to be involved in costly and bloody wars in distant parts of the globe we should be satisfied in England that we had the cause of justice on our side. The following resolution was next put to the meeting, and carried unanimously