The Sun.
London, England, 1853-01-07 00:00:00

-

E UNJUST INCOME T:4l.

(Fro2n, the Times.)
Before six months have elapsed we shall probak
bly be able to look back upon the existing scheni6
of direct taxation as a thing of the past, and we
venture to predict that of all past things this will
appear not the least unaccountable. A system so
monstrously unjust as to be indefensible on any
ground but that of helplessnesshas been maintained
against argument and opposition for ten long years.
The income tax was first introduced as a temporary
expedient, and the notorious unfairness of its ope-
ration was excused on the plea that, before any re-
vision, of its assessments could well be made, it
would be gone entirely. As time rolled on, it be-
came more and more evident that this plea was with-
out foundation, and that an income tax of some kind
must continue to enter for a while into the financial
schemes of successive Ministers. Nevertheless, the
excuse was still alleged with the same pertinacity, un-
til at length in disposition was roundly described as in-
ability, and it was asserted that what had never
been done yet could not, in point of fact, be ever
done at all. Just at this crisis of the discussion,
when the " impossibility" of adjusting taxation to
means had been put forth as a doctrine of states-
manship a crisis of another kind occurred in the
councils of her Majesty, and it was edifying to ob-
serve how, on the true principles of honiceopathy,
one crisis entirely cured the other. Mr. Disraeli,
with the support of nearly one-half of the house,
and the known assent of the other half, promptly
acknowledged, amid " loud cheering," that his
budget would recognise the distinction between in-
come and property by a variation of the rate levi-
able upon each. This spoke for the Dorbyites.
Then succeeded a Ministry composed of Peelites
and Whigs, and the first speech of the new Premier
contained an admission similar in principle to that
of Mr. Disraeli. So rapid, indeed, has been the
process of conviction, that it would now be scarcely
practicable to form an Administration with any
other views on this subject than those declared to
be "impossible" twelve months ago.
The injustice of the whole transaction is scarcely
credible. The income tax,. was ityow,;:i: '29sed
as a method of obtaining- direct contri ons pro-
portioned to the means of the contributor. It was
this consideration alone which suggested the total
exemption of incomes under 1501. a-year. The
nature too, and description of the several varieties
of income were duly regarded, and even arranged
under separate heads. When classification was desi-
rable for the purpose of collection no difficulties
were alleged, and schedules A,B, 0, and D provided
proper columns for every species of receipt. When,
however, this very classification was demanded for
the regulation of contributions, it was represented
as something beyond the scope f financial arithme-
tic, and all descriptions of income whatever, whether
precarious or permanent, whether arising frOm pro-
perty or created without property, were confounded
together, and held as identical in the eyes of the
State. And this injustice was represented as approxi-
mating to justice by reason of its universality.
Everybody it was said suffered alike, and therefore
nobody could complain. We wonder it never oc-
curred to these financiers to think how materially
all our budgets might be simplified by the mere
extension of this principle. We require about
50,000,0001. a year revenue, and there aro about
35,000,000 inhabitants of these islands. If, there-
fore, every one of them, male and female, old and
young, were assessed at 30s. a year, the whole thing
would be settled, and we undertake to prove the
fairness of this imposition by any arguments which
shall prove the justice of the present Income-tax.
The opponents of reform in this particular have
always vehemently declared that a perfectly fair
Income-tax was a downright impossibility. We
have no doubt of it. It is, and always must be,
absolutely impossible to attain to anything like
perfection in such an estimate ; but is that any
reason for making no approximation to equity
at all, and for maintaining the greatest amount
of iniquity as the most desirable alternative ?
Has such a principle been ever maintained on any
other occasion ? Take the example of the House-
tax. This tax has been recognised by financiers
of all parties as one of the soundest in use ; and
on these grounds it was imposed by the Whigs,
and proposed to be doubled by the Protectionists.
Now, we are sure that every reader's experience
will bear us out when we say that every single
town in England contains at least twenty instances
in which the principle of the tax entirely fails ;
where, for some reason or other, the occupant
is lodged either decidedly above his means or de-
cidedly below them, and where, of course, the ope-
rations of the duty would be proportionately un-
just. But is the house tax assailed on these
grounds ? Is it not, on the contrary, admitted by
all persons that the general validity of the rule
which measures a man's means by his habitation is
amply sufficient ?—and is not the rule at least
equally general, that incomes derived from realised
property represent a larger taxable substance than
incomes arising from precarious employment ?
Mr. Disraeli was accused of unstatesmanhke
carelessness in suggesting ono rate of taxation for
permanent and another for precarious incomes,
and leaving the matter without further analysis.
We do not say that such analysis was not de-
sirable, but we assert, without fear of contradic-
tion, that Mr. Disraeli's proposal, loose as it was,
was incomparably more equitable than that
which his opponents had been maintaining. Mr.
Gladstone called the Ministerial suggestion a "vague
variance," an " abstraction," and so forth, be-
cause it did not enter into all the subdivisions of
the subject. But it affirmed the one great prin.
ciple of division and apportionment, and, however
conjectural the ratio of taxability may have been,
we say that even this simple distinction would have
been a long step towards justice. The difference
between property and income is already recognised
in the schedules for all purposes except that of re-
gulating the rate of contribution. Mr. Disraeli
proposed to remedy this defect by enacting that
property should pay 7d. in the pound, and income
51d. Hereupon he was assailed by countless ex-
amples of incomes which were certain and proper-
ties which were unreal. Very likely these were
authentic, but is it not incontestible that they were
all exceptions, and that Mr. Disraeli's legislation,
however roughly framed, had at least the enormous
advantage of proceeding by rule ? There is a dis-
tinction made between shops and dwelling-houses
in the assessment of the house duty. In some
cases, it is hard to say whether a house comes under
the first or the second definition, and in others the
true intention of the Legislature is neutralized by
the actual operation of the tax. But is this a
ground for taxing all shops like all dwelling-
houses, and abolising the distinction altogether ?
We have certainly no expectation that Mr. Glad-
will be able to construct a scheme of assessment
satisfactory to so very discriminative a mind as his
own, but we are confident that he cannot' fail in
making an approximation• to what is right. Any
re-adjustment of the income tax, however clumsy,
imperfect, or circuitous, must at least, if it pro-
ceed on the principle of distinguishing between
•
precarious profits and realised property, succeed in
substituting a less injustice for a greater. Injustice
is the characteristic of the present system from one
end to the other, nor is it very easy to understand
how it could ever have been sincerely defended for
fear of anything worse. A worse arrangement is
impossible. Very likely, under any regulations, there will remain some cases unrelieved, but if the
respective taxabilities of income and proert be
iirst fairly proportioned, and then a due provision
made for determining what shall be taken as pro-
in doubtful examples,
perty, and what as income,
immense amount of deserved relief will be ex-
tended to the community, and an equal share of dis-
tatesmen.
credit escaped by British s

________..i___
A DETERMINED ItIJITIAN.—A man named Singler,
formerly a soldier in the 2d French regiment of Marine a,
recently condemned to ten years' hard labour at the
hulks for
a man haling attempted to murder two persons
named Rateau, who afterwards died of the
wounds which he received, and a girl named Louise
Larisse, contrived to escape last week, early m the
morning, from the military hospital of Rochefort.
When once outside, he proceeded straight to the house
of the owner of a wine shop where the girl Larissa wa_
in service, and getting over the wall into the yard. by
means of a ladder which he found outside, he 7ai.te
patiently until the girl came out, and then, sprjengun
forward, stabbed her five times with a knife whloophital.
had borrowed from a sick sailor lying
the wine-shop, seeing what was going on,
34th Regitm n d
and took to flight ; but a soldier ofit
Several persons who were breakfasting ineinnt,htgeheerto737lll
grappling with him, at last forced ti
was thou taken a pro-
hand, and mastered him. Singler.n
immediately
fell
Commissary
named Sauveton, who knew Sin er,_ireuksbneud_e f°ruonnh'
back
to the hospital, where he
was
foundi
by
the
of Police who came to interrogate
on the
courts
of justice
that, having now had vengeance
d that the c
found sleep, in which-he w.
was perfectly satisfied,
to
him.
might do what they pleased
NEAR NOTTINDHAIII.—A mos
si.ingLearrdisescela, declared
GAROTTE ROBBERY
:ts, daringnlialearly
yfgr Estitxe the
et robbery,ociwn
lel k. , rth-e-smnietntetod.O.nrosa,udn, daabyountighhalf
A young man named Bennett, a
proceeding up Snenton-road to the village
him.
printer, wa-9 he.was forcibly dragged into the passage
one of whom strangled hint, whilst the
by two rfti
unbuttoned his clothes and took from him his
other
o Tho robbers then succeeded in making their
watch.
The road is a well-frequented one.
escape.
LADIES' SLEEVES.—A German physician is said to be
church, Nuvh_eanns,
about to publish a scientific condemnation of the present
mote rheumatism
aretiatnod
loose sleeves worn by ladies.
teße asserts that they pro-
t lallel lkoinnzdsaonfdcocmlo
former period. Pselaisilltsee'vrsdofres:

AS, •