The patron of husbandry. (Columbus, Miss.) 1875-1883, 1880-07-10

and there can be no more lrnportan
service rendered in the. interest q
T the State and National !Uoverhrpen
than the calm, nnprejudiced and in
. telligent discussion of the subject
, and since the laboring people of ths
country, the VALUE creating portion
of the people, are more deeply in
, terested in it than any one else, we
have chosen in the columns of this
paper to undertake the matter of ar
!, resting their attention and of en-
gaging their consideration of the
matter, because when once they are
) led to see it in its. proper light we
shall have very different state oi
} affairs from that which now pre-.
sents itself to our view.
1.-THE premises which have already
been assumed in the discussion oil
this question be admitted; if it be 9
fact that taxation, DIRECT OR md
RECT, is nothing more than trans.
fer of PRODUCT OR VALUE from
the taxpayer to the treasury of the
Government without receiving any
equivalent VALUE; if it be true that
these values created by labor and in
dustry, SO soon as paid into the
treasury and consumed by the. Gov
eminent never afterwards revert to
the community or the taxpayers after
they have paid them, and that the
system of raising revenue is in no
way a means of REPRODUCTION,
| but has a tendency to sREDUCE
instead of INCREASE wealth by the
| SUBTRACTION of VALUES from the
fields of labor, industry and enter
prise, there is no means of getting
away from the legitimate and logi-
cal conclusion, that taxation is
NECESSARY evil, and the evil should
be lessened as much Of possible by
so arranging a system of taxation as
will
1. Be most moderate in the rate or
ratio.
2. Such as will press impartially
on all classes
Z. Such as is least injurious to pro-
duction.
We shall undertake to discuss
these three conclusion in their order
for each one may be regarded as
separate and distinct proposition,
and we'll worthy the attention of
every one who wishes to fully un-
derstand the matter, for every citi-
zen, who is taxpayer, must feel
that it is IA subject which appeals to
him personally.
Under the first head, or in regard
to the first conclusion, we desire to
say that if indeed taxation TAKES
from the producer a certain value,
deprives him of d product of his
industry, skill and labor, which he
might otherwise enjoy for his own
personal qualification or relieve his
own or his family's necessities, or
might be SO invested as to reproduce
other values products which, when
accumulated, constitute wealth, then
it must be evident that the smaller
the rate or ratio of tax, the less will
be the burden or privation, the
smaller the amount exacted the lar
ger will be the amount which re-
mains.
We might go forward and show
that just in proportion as the rate or
ratio is increased, just in the same
proportion will the taxpayers be
debarred from the enjoyment of so
much OF the products of his labor,
and when pushed to an extent snch
as makes it really oppressive, then
we witness the most lamentable eff
fects of improverishing the citizen,
while the system does not enrich
he State or nation. This is en- {
ohatically true in regard to IND1-
RECT taxation, such as is the i'm /
position of tax upon the articles of l
consumption. Z
Now just in proportion as an in |
fividuafs revenue is reduced. Just in I
lie same proportion must be his y
of the articles which
must be obtained by an exchange t
Il values-for you cannot take from t
i'm the one without at the same L
me curtailing the other in the same t
alto. His demands tten for those
Kings which he can no longer con G
ume, because of the tax required. n
1ust of necessity be proportionatelv e
1t just as clearly follows C
nat when the demand is reduced the il
im'nution of supply of production v
lust be in exact ratio; and, there Il
ore, when an exorbitant fax. such
5 is that WHICH is levied upon some
products, the conse-
uence is not only most grievously
1T by the consumers, but also by
lie producers, and the Government
| the end is not enriched. G
Excessive taxation is. destruction If
OF only of the wealth of individuals. f
ut has been regarded by one writer II
4 political economy, if by no more. r.
lat it was kind of governmental
JIcIDE, whether laid upon objects c,
necessity. or upon those of LUXURY Y
18th this distinction, that, in the lat 81
r case, cit extinguishes only a Dor +,
On of the products on which it falls. n
gether with the qualification thew g,
e calculated to afford, while in the II
rmer, it extinguishes both produc la
IN and consumption, and the tax n,
yer into the bargain" a
We might go forward under this a,
.ad and write a volume. but enough ar
IS been said TO lead every reflective q;
ind to the conclusion that mod III