The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1902-01-10
CHAPTER XII.
Taxation of Incomes.

Ine aQVISaDlllty OF taxing incomes is
ably supported On either side. The chief
objections to such a means Of revenue
are (D that it is e fruitful source of
perjury; and, (2) that it is too inquisi-
torial to be tolerated. Neither ground
justifies it's exclusion from the revenue
system of the state. Both objections OBJ
tain with equal force to the taxation of all
forms OF personal property which are
capable of easy concealment. The history
of taxation in all states demonst ra ties that
perjury and other forms of dishonesty
have always characterized the taxation Of
personal property So long as such prop
erty Is deemed a proper subject of taxa
ton, a state cannot consist emily refrain
on the ground of immortality from the
taxation of incomes. -.
Furthermore, we have reached period
in our industrial development when in
comes as a source Of revenue cannot wise
ly be omitted. Every state has a large
class of wealthy citizens who would not
otherwise adequately contribute to the
public burden.
A sentiment in favor Of an income tax
is rapidly growing. Fair minded men of
the Weather classes recognize it's JUS
ttce; and the less wealthy and wage
earning classes welcome it as a means for
relieving them of a burden which they
must otherwise unjustly bear. The higher
peoples civilization, the more complex
their Industrial life and the greater their
production of material wealth, the more
appropriate becomes an income tax. Dr.
Walker states the truth clearly when he
says:
General ability has been declared to be
the proper test; and income, not property,
the correct measure Of ability. It is
very clear that the taxation of property
does not reach all the persons capable of
paying taxes. 1t may be asserted, also,
that neither is income a perfect test,
tot MI,
income tax Is, however, the only direct
tax which has been declared by almost all
economists to be the most just Viewed
from the personal standpoint all persons
owe the state a share of their incomes.
The property tax exempts those vast num-
bers Of persons who live on their incomes
and accumulate no property. Its injus-
tlce is obvious" "Studies in Hist. Eco.
& Pub. Law Columbia Coll. Pub. V.
5, p IL.
Income or revenue may not" says Mr..
Seligman, "be an ideal test; for there is
no absolute test which can exactly gauge
all the varying personal circumstances
OF each individual. But it is the best
workable test that governments can Sc
cure, and 1t Is in harmony with the test
imposed on the individual by the force OF
social opinion in regard to his duty to his
own family. For this reason modern
states are everywhere changing their rev.
enue systems, so that the taxes shall cor
respond, as nearly rs possible, to the rev.
enues of citizen. This is the last step
in the evolution. But precisely because
it. is a personal tax, rather than a tax on
things, 1t involves administrative difficult
ties and fresupposes definite stage OF
social morality and political probity
When this stage has not yet been reached
1t may be better to continue the system OF
taxes on product, which form a very rough
approximation to the revenue of the tax
payer, than to attempt system Of income
taxes which strives to reach the revenues
more closely. But whatever may be the
momentary demand of eXpediency, the
line of development is evident and the ul-
innate result must necessarily harmonic
with the facts Of ecOnomis and social rela-
tions. Essays in Taxation" p. IS.
We have not overlooked the views Of
John Stuart Mill nor attempted to under
value his objections to an income tax NJ
writer exceeds him in recognition of the
Justice of such tax; for he says that
when fairly assessed, it would be, il
point of justice, the least ,exceptionable
of all taxes" 1.-THE objection to it, ht
further says, in the present low state Of
public morality, is the impossibility o.
,ascertaining the real incomes of the con-
tributors." -"Polit. Econ" V. s. Bool
V, Oh. 2, p. 5.
:, 1t was the view of that able economist
that because the tax will be greatly
evaded by the dishonest, it will therefore
fall heaviest on the most conscientious
But may not the same objection be also
urged against the taxation of money an(
other species of easily concealed persona
property?
We remark, in passing, that since the
time when the above views were expressed
by Mr.. Mill, public sentiment has greatly
changed upon the subject and that the,
are not shared by many Of the bes
thinkers of to-day.
A further objection sometimes urget
against an income tax is that for any on,
state, or few states, to adopt it with
states, would cause wealthy citizens t,
remove from the state in which it i
adopted Those who raise such objec
ton unWisely counsel with their fears
1t Is in the first place sheer speculation
1t re-supposes that taxpayers will b
willing to sever business prf e aic '55'c'@
tfnna and an