The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-10 00:00:00

THE INCOME-TAX.
TO THE EDITOR OF THE TIMES.
Sir,—Your leading article in this day's journal leaves no
doubt on my mind that we are to he subjected to this bur-
densome impost for an indefinite period; 1 therefore beg that
you will allow me a small space briefly to state my own case
in illustration of its unequal bearing.
I am an engraver, end by great exertion have lately earned
evt;r.,-e t:zle:11 turouie of 5001. At the time of my mar-
rnige 1 insured my life for 1,000/.; and at the birth of each
of my four children 1 have insured a further sum of 1,0001.,
so that I have now to provide for premiums on policies
amounting to 5,0001. This would have required an annual
sum of 1801., but I am so fortunate as to have insured in an
institution where success has enabled the Directors to reduce
my payment to 120/. This is still a serious call on my limited
means ; neverthelass, my wife and I prefer abstinence front
every approach to luxury, and even privation of come com-
forts, to the risk of leavit g our children chargeable to our
friends or to the community. .
Should my health; and especially my eyesight, be provi-
dentially preserved, so as to enable me to continue my pay-
ments to the insurance company, my wife and four children
will, at my decease, inherit 1,0001. each, producing a scanty
income of 301.

The case of a friend and close neighbour offers a marked
contrast to mine. He is in the enjoyment of a clear income
of. s(}o/. derived frnr.l trcelloN land, occupied at present by
g,,rdenerz, but which may shortly be in demand for
building purposes. He has five children; but as he is a
widower, our families are equal in number. My friend, being
of a literary turn, spends much time in his study, and in the
education of his childrer, thereby saving those schol charges
which unavoidably fall upon me. This gentleman can spend
his whole income without solicitude, as, at his decease, each
of his children will inherit a certain income of 1001., with
expectations of future improvement. Nevertheless our re-
turns to the Commissioners are necessarsly the same.
Now, Sir, is it consistent with equity that I, with my pre-
carious income (necessarily reduced by life insurance to 3801.
to secure a pittance to my family), should be called upon to
pay the same amount of tax as my friend, with his inde-
pendent and certain income of 500/. ?
I do not pretend to contest the advantages of an income
and property-tax based on equitable principles, neither am I
unwilling to bear my just proportion of the burden. In my
humble opinion, a tax on property of 5 per cent. and 2 per
cent. on earnings would meet the justice of the case. This
would, I am persuaded, give universal satisfaction to the
industrious classes, and would raise a large sum, enablinc,
the Ministry to take off many imposts bearing unfairly on the
am, Sir, your obedient servant, G. 'l'.
Camden-town, Feb. 8.

THE WINDOW-TAX.
TO THE EDl7'Ol? OF THE SUN.
Strt,—Your leading article; of tie sth contains an earnest
expression of a very natural wish for the removal of the
window-tax, on the ground that attempts to avoid its
exactions frequently lead the builders and occupiers of dwel-
lings to stop up windows that should be open ; and, by doing
so, risk injury to their own health, and certainly disfigure
their houses. If these evils were inevitable consequences of
the tax, your strictures upon that impost would be perfectly
legitimate; as the tax is at present levied, these are the con-
sequences that must naturally to expected but I think it is
quite possible to adopt a mode of assessment which would not
be open to this objection, and would have the further advan-

tags of distributing the burthen of taxation more equally
among those who have to bear it. At present, window-tax
is charged according to the number of windows, the amount
varying, according -to a graduated scale. The builder, is
therefore. tempted to put in as few windows as possible, and
frequently, nay, generally, houses are rendered less commo-
dious and healthful than hey otherwise would be, in conse-
quence. W. E. Hickson. Esq., one of the Commissioners of
inquiry into the condition of the hand-loom weavers,
was, so far as I know, the first to propose a
plan by which the temptation to this evil might be
avoided- without injury to the revenue from the window-tax.
Mr. Hickson proposes that the tax should be charged ac-
cording to the size of the house, not according to the number
of its windows. Let a man live in a glass house if he please,
he should pay no more window-tax than another who has
only a little peephole in each room. It has been objected
that such a mode of assessment would operate as an induce-
ment to build low rooms. It will operate as an inducement
to inhabit small houses, but i•o do all rates upon such pro-
perty, but it need not be made to operate as an inducement
to construct the houses in any particular form, except that
which individual convenience dictates. It would be easy
to construct a scale of charges regulated proportionately to
the area of the ground occupied, and the number of stories
in the house, assuming that the number of windows ought
to be proportionate : let the window-tax be charged accord-
ingly whether the windows be made or not.
It would not perhaps be just to apply the new mode ofassess-
ment to houses constructed to meet the present law, but it
would be easy to give the occupiers of houses already built
the option of being assessed according to the present or an
improved plan, and apply the improved plan imperatively to
future houses only. I need not, however, enter upon details.
You will perceive that t• e adoption of some such principle as
this would remove the principal objections to a tax which, 1
fear, we must for the present at least submit to. Those of your
readers who desire to see more argument on this subject may
refer to Mr. Hickson's evidence published at pages 436-7 of
the first report of the Health of Towns Commissioners.—
Yours, &c., X.
Manchester, Feb. 7,1845.