New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1885-06-15
BRITISH TAXES AND OUR OWN

Interesting light is cast upon the relative
position of this country and Great britain,
as respects financial strength, by re-
mari, incidentally made by The London
Economist in late issue. That journal
saws that although within the past twenty
wears the wealth of Great Britain "has
gone on increasing with rapid strides, the
sburden of our taxation has not sensibly i'll
u creased. In 1864 the receipts per head OF
speculation amounted to AIS. I'd, and in 1854
q they amounted to 4Ss. 10d. per head. The vast
Increment of wealth realized by us in the
q twenty years has thus almost wholly escaped
aimperial taxation, and in proportion 10 Our
ameans we are contributing to the Treasury lar
"less than we formerly did" This does indeed
show that Great Britain has a large reserve of
strength not yet called upon by any emergency
But the rate of taxation in 1864 was equivalent
in money of the United States to 81 a. and
in 1854 to $11 ~. In order to appreciate
what such taxation means we have only to con-
slider that the United States, in the year 1864,
though in the midst of great civil war, paid
taxes averaging only 81 II for every inhabi-
tant, and in this statement are included all the
revenues of the Government from miscel-
laneOus sources not properly reckoned with
taxation. But in the year 1884, reckoning the
population at $1,000, 900, the entire revenue of
the Government from all sources averaged
So for each person.
II is also true that the resources of the United
States in the fiscal year 1864 were by no means
strained to the utmost. Taxes were not rs
heavy then as they were afterward, and the
revenue, $261, 100000, rose two years later
in the fiscal year 1866 to $55S, 1000, 900, which
was at the rate of about So 80 for each
person. In that one year, but probably in
hardly any other has the taxation of the United
States been greater per capita than that OF
Great Britain. The fact that such taxation was
borne by the people proves plainly that they
are abundantly able to bear. rs respects popula-
ton alone, burden more than two and half
times as great a. that which they now are beaI
ing. But in this country, even more than in
Great Britain, the increase in wealth has far
outrun the increase in population. If there is
in Great Britain vast increment Of wealth as
yet not burdened by taxation, in the same sense
it may be said that In this country an addition
far exceeding all the wealth that existed ut the
close of the war has been made, while taxes have
been greatly reduced. Thus if it be supposed
that the average wealth for each person in the
country is now at least $500. the tax yearly
paid to the support of the National Government
is about two thirds of one per cent, OF about 81
cents on 800. But the aggregate wealth in
the country twenty years ago was certainly less
than $500 to each person, and the tax then
paid for the support OF the National Govern
ment was at least about 81 80 on each 800.
Thus while this country is paying much less
than half the tax in proportion to population
and wealth which it paid twenty years ago, the
people of Great Britain are paying heavier
tax in proportion to population. while their in
crease in wealth has been far less than in this
country. 1t might be added, too. that n great
part of the tax paid here is for the purpose of
oxtnguishng the public debt, of which more
than $1,000, 100000 has been paid, while the
people of Great Britain would be very glad to
know that their debt had been reduced at all.