The Sun.
London, England, 1848-03-04 00:00:00

INCOME-TAX.

Mr. HORSMAN then rose, pursuant to notice, to
move—" That, if the income-tax be continued, it is
expedient to amend the Act, and not to impose the
same charge on incomes arising from professional
and precarious sources as on those derived from real
property." lie felt that it was most expedient that
the question should be fully settled before the House
went into a Committee of Ways and Means; and
the injustice attending the operation of that tax
should be in some degree removed. The income-
tax had now taken a permanent rather than a tempo-
rary character, and it was therefore their bounden
duty to face the difficulty at once, and to set at work
to endeavour to devise some means to bring the tax
into a more business-like and just form. The
inconveniences to which they had hitherto
submitted, had been borne under the pros-
pect of their being of a temporary nature.
But those temporary inconveniences now arose
to the character of positive grievances, when all the
inequalities of that tax were to be saddled upon them
for their lives. The more objectionable any tax was
in itself the greater reason there was why the House
should endeavour to make it as just and as little
onerous as possible, and without any defect in their
legislation. It had been admitted by every writer
upon the subject, that an income tax was the last tax
which should be imposed upon any country ; it was a
tax abhorent to the feelings of the people, and every
Minister should defer it to the moment of the very
last emergency, and being so deferred, when that
moment of emergency did arrive, when the people
were threatened with the invasion of a foreign enemy,
then they would forget their personal feelings in a ge-
neral desire for the public safety, and when their shores
were invaded, then in the hands of a wise Minister
this tax would be a more formidable weapon than any
system of warfare or of national defences that could
be devised. Until a late period they would have
thought as little of a Minister in time of peace pro-
posing this tax as they would of a Minister in a time
of war disbanding their army. However in the year
1842, the Right Honourable Baronet the
Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel)
established that tax, bringing along with it certain
proposals, and enforced it by such cogent reasons,
and held out such promises of great public advan-
tage, that it carried the House and the country along
with it, and the proposition was most cordially ac-
cepted, and they had in this case to witness the
strange result of a Minister imposing the most un-
popular tax, and at the same time gaining for
himself popularity by that proposal.—(Hear, hear.)
The imposing of one burden by Sir R. Peel was
made the instrument for the remission of others.
The income-tax, which was imposed in 1842 and
renewed in 1845, together with some minor taxes
which were imposed, were estimated to raise an
income of 5,600,0001. a year; but from 1842 to 1845,
inclusive, the taxes which were remitted amounted
to no less a suns than 7,000,0001. So if it
were taken as a mere matter of pecuniary burden,
the public were considerable gainers by the change.
That, however, would not have reconciled them to a
tax so odious and objectionable if it had not been
demanded as a means of trying a great fiscal experi-
ment for the limited period of three years. There
were, therefore, two extenuating circumstances in
favour of the measure proposed by Sir Robert Peel.
In the first place, it was accompanied by a large
remission of other taxes, and in the next place its
duration was limited. The period had now expired,
and they were now asked to renew the tax under
entirely different circumstances, and for a different
purpose. The proceeds to be raised by it was to be
e rl' h
applied to the current expenditure of the country, and
instead of being of limited duration, it was to be
mad©
perpetual, t
tendingua
to
ediregcetntearxaal
taxation, and
as
sofit tlle
country was
was
admitted on all hands that the income-tax was likely
to be permanent, it was their duty
• • to put it in a
business-like shape, in order that it might be accept-
able to the country, and not a discredit to our legisla-
tion.—(blear, hear.) Every person was aware of its
inequality and injustice as it present existed, and there-
fore it was unnecessary for him to cite many exam n p les
in order to show that that was the case. lie would,
however, refer to one or two familiar cases ; and,
first, that of a person fifty-five years of age, receiving
an annuity of 400/. daring his lifetime. Now, was
it fair to tax him the same as they would a person
who was a fundholder, who received a similar
income ? Calculate the duration of the life of the
former, his income was only worth 4,9001., whilst
the income of the latter was worth 10,0001, and his
property went to his representative at his death.
lie would take another case, that of a man in the
prime of life—a professsional man—a physician of
45, in full practice, and making his 5,000/. a
year. He paid to the Exchequer the same
sum as the landed proprietor who drew his