The Sun.
London, England, 1830-04-08 00:00:00

EXPEDIENCY OF A PROPERTY TAX
CONSIDERED.

Among the various projects which have been
agitated on the subject of taxation, it appears, from
the statement of Mr. Peel, that the commutation,
to a certain extent, of the taxes on consumeable ar-
ticles, into a property tax, has been under the cons
sideration of Ministers, and has not been finally re.
linquished. Mr. Huskisson, too, as far as we can
judge from some of his late speeches, seems favour-
able to a plan of this nature. In all such changes, it
may be remarked, even when they are for the better,
that there is a great and certain disadvantage. The
commerce of the country has grown up under the
burden of the existing taxes, and has been in some
degree moulded by them into its present form.
Large capitals have been invested in particular
branches of industry on the faith of existing regula-
tions, and all sudden changes tend to derange those
branches of industry, to endanger the capital by which
they are carried on, and in many cases to occasion
serious injury to individuals. It is the duty of a
wise statesman, therefore, to avoid himself, and is
repress in others, a love of useless change, and
even to introduce such changes as are necessary
with caution, and with a due regard to exist-
ing interests. But a change from indirect to direct
taxation would be inexpedient in itself. It would be
changing for the worse. It would be substituting
for the lenient and easy operation of optional taxes,
which are paid gradually and in small sums, and
which, mixing with our daily expence, are scarcely
felt by those who pay them, the vexation of com-
pulsory taxes, which cannot be avoided, and which,
in place of being paid gradually, to suit the general
convenience, are allowed to run up in arrear, and
frequently occasion great anxiety and distress before
they are paid. The taxes, for example, on tea,
sugar, spirits, soap, candles, &c. are all paid in de-
tail, frequently in sums so small as a penny; while
the assessed tuxes run up for a year, and are gene-
rally paid with inconvenience, more or less, and al-
ways with a grudge; and this objection would at-
tach in a still greater degree to a property tax. If
we study, therefore, the ease and convenience of
the people, we never will subject them, in lieu of
taxes on commodities, to the harsh operation of a
property tax, to which there are besides innumer-
able other practical objections. Not the least of
these is that, in order to bring to account the taxable
property or income of a country, concealed as it
naturally is under every species of evasion, it is found
necessary to resort to arbitrary and inquisitorial
proceedings, entirely at variance with the habits and
feelings of a free people. It is no doubt just that
every one should contribute to the State in propor-
tion to his income. But we cannot in practice attain
to this degree of abstract justice; and an equal tax
on income is therefore a specious theory which can
never be realized. A tax on real property would
be liable to the same or even greater objections;
and whatever harsh and inquisitorial modes of assess-
ment were resorted to, it would still press un-
equally on the holders of property. Some sorts of
property, such as land, funded property, &c., ere pe-
culiarly within its reach ; and lie indeed under the
tax-gatherer's gripe; while in other cases it would
be extremely difficult to ascertain the extent of the
property so taxed, or the value. A law for a general
tax on property must, therefore, embrace the most
complicated details; it would be necessary to accu-
mulate clauses upon clauses to guard against evasion,
and to be efficient in practice it must bearmed with the
most harsh and arbitrary provisions. Now before sets
ting in motion all this complicated apparatus for the
vexation of the country, it would be prudent first to
calculate how much we are likely to gain by the
change. The revenue arising from property in Eng-
lrnd and Scotland was rated in the schedule for the
property-tax
funded
inl
property,Bl3 atEsa7s,tl2l9n,doi4a7l
.
millions more, making together 87,129,047/, of
taxable property, which at 5 per cent, and we could
scarcely venture to impose a heavier tax, would
yield a revenue of 4,356,4521. This revenue does
BankVe Stockmay add3o
for
not much exceed the produce of the malt duty.
which amounts to nearly four millions per annum ;
the ditty nn tea, which is above three millions ; and
it is not equal to the duty onaiipch amounted,
in 1828, to 4,576,2871. The two of these du-
ties are no doubt heavy and oppressive, amounting
to 100 per cent. on the cost of the commodities;
but still, would it be worth while, for the relief af-
forded by their repeal, to encounter the serious evil
of a property-tax ? Would not this be merely shift-
ing the burden, from which we cannot escape, and
shifting it, in a manner, to press with greater seve-
rity than before? Would we not rather pay the
tax on tea or sugar, heavy though they be, than be
presented with a schedule, requiring, under heavy
penalties, that we shall give a faithful and true ac-
count to Commissioners, appointed for the purpose,
of all the real property which we possess—of its
value—and the exact income we derive from it--
those Commissioners being moreover empowered,
provided they are not satisfied, to question the hol-
ders of property in any manner, and even to put
them upon oath ? Is there any comparison, we
would ask, between a tax on tea or sugar, which
subjects us to no visits or questions from the tax•
gatherei, which we pay without the smallest trouble,
along with the price of the article, and a tax which
leads to a disclosure of our private affairs to straw
gers, and to the most vexatious and perplexing in-
quiries ? Would there be any compensation in this
change for the evils which it would occasion; for
the disturbance which it would give to the commu-
nity; and for the discontent and irritation which
would be excited in the country, unused, as we have
long been, to the odious inquisition into our private
affairs, which is the necessary consequence of a pro-
perty-tax ?—Edinburgh Evening C'ourant.

Sir ROBERT GORE BOOTH, Bart., of Lisa-
dill House, who has just been married to one of the daugh-
ters of Mr. Serjeant Gootn, is said to possess an unen-
cumbered estate of 14,000/. a-year, bisities a considerable
personal property amassed during his minority. The pre-
sent is the second marriage of Sir ROBERT, although he
has not passed his twenty-fifth year.—Dublin Mori il9
Register.