Impolicy of the Income Tax
Joseph Dana Miller
[1892]
[An article that first appeared in Belford
Magazine and later reprinted by G.P. Putnam's Son in an 1892
volume entitled, Who Pays Your Taxes? as part of a "Questions
of the Day" series. Reprinted from Land and Freedom,
May-June, 1932. "The article by Mr. Miller, entitled "Taxing
Honest and Thrift," is a serious attempt to show the
impolicy of income taxation. In the early '90s a number of
so-called radicals and many Socialists, from various viewpoint
were urging this form of taxation. Even a few Single Taxers were
not unfriendly to it, for it seemed to offer a substitute for
tariff taxes. In this article it was sought to submit the claims
for this form of taxation to a searching analysis, and it is
perhaps the most elaborate attack upon the Income Tax made up to
that time."]
|
TAXING HONESTY AND THRIFT
Many persons who see the folly of the listing system believe an
income tax offers the best substitute for present methods of taxation.
Mr. Joseph Dana Miller published in
Belford's Magazine for November, 1891, an article admirably
demonstrating the folly and injustice of the income tax. Mr. Miller
writes from the point of view of the absolute free trader, and would
substitute for all present taxes a single tax on land values. Mr.
Miller's article is valuable as an argument against an income tax, and
it is reprinted here. Says Mr. Miller:
"The total abolition of the tariff, and the
necessity of resorting to some other method of raising revenue, is
not a remote contingency. The reduction of the tariff to a point
yielding insufficient revenue, which other methods of taxation must
be considered, may engage the attention of the next Congress. At all
events, the question of direct taxation is fast impending; and it is
important to know what is offered as a substitute for the imposts
upon commerce which have hitherto yielded the greater portion of our
national revenues.
"It is true that commerce may to a great extent be freed
without diminishing, nay, with even increasing revenues; that in
many instances the placing of what are known as 'raw materials' upon
the free list, enlarging trade and increasing the volume of imports,
will increase rather than diminish the amounts raised by customs
duties; that, in brief, a tariff may be so adjusted as to yield the
maximum of revenue with the minimum of duties.
"But such a tariff would still be a burden upon commerce; will
still bear with unequal weight upon the poor, being as it is a tax
not upon wealth but upon consumption; would still leave open doors
to protectionist schemes for raising needed revenue, for in all the
world there is not a so-called protective tariff but was born of a
revenue mother into the hands of a protection accoucheur. Abolition
of the tariff makes the question of direct taxation inevitable
before many years. And such taxation must be of a kind to leave
labor and capital the freest. Is the income tax such a tax?
"The kind of income tax most likely to be imposed is one
exempting incomes below a certain fixed sum. It will be assumed that
incomes below $1,000 per annum represent actual necessities, and
upon all incomes in excess of that sum government may levy at
discretion. Let us consider, first, the impolicy of such a
discriminating income tax.
"A tax exempting incomes below a certain fixed sum intensifies
the effect which all such taxes have, of operating as fines upon
industry. The effect is precisely the same as discrimination in
railroad rates in favor of certain localities to the disadvantage of
competing centres, such railroad discriminations as, for example,
enable farmers at distances to transport their wheat more cheaply
than farmers nearer to market, result not solely to the disadvantage
of individuals, but, what is not so clearly apparent, in the actual
destruction of wealth.
"Its operations may be illustrated in another way. If the
United States imposed taxes on incomes, and Canada imposed none, and
all other things were equal, the Canadian manufacturers and
merchants would have an advantage in both Canadian and American
markets. The effects as between competing individuals are the same
as between competing countries. A discriminating income tax is a tax
in favor of some men as against others. It puts some merchants and
some manufacturers at a disadvantage in competition with others.
"It is not, then, merely that an income tax is unequal in its
operations, but that the operations are destructive of wealth. When
we exempt small incomes, and tax larger ones, what in effect are we
doing but taxing the larger abilities in favor of the smaller? Not
that this is true all cases, since large incomes are often the
result not of superior abilities but of monopolies secured to the
possessor by legislation. But it is generally true, nevertheless,
that higher incomes denote higher manual or commercial intelligence.
This income, these wages, are the payment by society of the higher
order and value of service. Society pays it because the service is
worth it. For society to turn and take part of it back is to declare
itself a foolish paymaster, or to assume tacitly that the income is
due to the possession of special privileges which society has
unjustly created. In either case the process disredits the system.
"Is there any escape from this conclusion? Does not, in fact,
the advocacy of an income tax in itself contain the admission of the
injustice of social conditions which secure to the receivers such
incomes? If not, why is it just to tax incomes? A proportional
income tax is a robbery of the rich for the benefit of the poor that
is, it is theoretically such. Practically it would not be. For the
history of taxation abundantly reveals that all systems leveled
against wealth return against poverty.
"Almost every country imposes income taxes. But these vary and
are varied with time and place. A graduated income tax that is, a
tax increasing pro rata to income which is of the kind most likely
to recommend itself to the Farmers' Alliance was first proposed by
[Quesnay] and the French economists. But nothing is more
conclusively demonstrated than its failure in practice. It took
England just twelve nonths to get rid of it, the graduated feature
of the tax being adopted in 1798 under Pitt, and abolished in 1799.
And this occurred in a time of war, when all kinds of taxation are
imposed and continued, regardless of effects or of the difficulties
of assessment and collection.
"Germany has long levied an income tax. Professor Goldwin
Smith says, 'There is no complaint in regard to it.'
"Unfortunately, little can be gathered as to the operation of
the tax in those countries in which 'there is no complaint.' It is
only under representative governments that the systems of taxation
in vogue beccome objects of complaint or criticism. It is to England
we must turn if we would learn something of the mode of taxation we
are considering.
"In England the income tax yields a large revenue; yet the
organized opposition to it is strong and active. Such opposition is
based rather upon the necessarily inquisitorial mode of its
assessment and collection than upon the broader considerations which
condemn it. And the objections are strong against a system which
calls for the merchant's and broker's ledger and private accounts,
the amount of profit on sales, and the sums of borrowed capital, as
the price of exemption from excessive overcharge. And when these
business secrets are laid before surveyor and commissioners who are
fellow-townsmen -- perhaps actual rivals in business -- the
embarrassing nature of such investigation can better be imagined
than described.
"Mill contends in his 'Political Economy' that the income tax
has such objections in practice that it should be reserved only for
special emergencies. But the injustice of the income tax has usually
been aggravated by the fact of its being a temporary measure, and by
reason of its constant modifications disastrous in effect, falling
upon incomes which cease with the expiration of the tax, to the
exemption of the future and larger incomes from investments in
process of maturing during its continuance.
"Historically, however, Mill's dictum is justified; for the
income tax has never occupied any other than a subordinate place in
the taxes of any country. 'In France the attempt to introduce it
utterly failed,' says Godwin Smith; and in India it was so unpopular
that it had to be abolished. In England it has been continued, but
always under protest and with apologetic explanations from every
successive Chancellor of the Exchequer.
"Beginning with the imposition of an income tax of four
shillings in the pound, in 1689, by the English government, which is
said to have borrowed it from Holland, where it had long been known
to Alva and the Spanish plunderers and tax-gatherers who preyed upon
the people of the Netherlands, this particular mode of taxation has
been subject to such alteration, modification and attack as to
reveal its essentially unstable character. Precisely as a tariff
tax, upon which there is no practical agreement among either
revenue-tariff men or the schools of ultra-protectionists, the kind
and degree of an income tax among those who uphold it as a tax to be
recommended in itself has been shuttlecock for every battledore.
But, historically, it has been either a war measure or an
alternative.
"The income tax was imposed by England in 1797 to defray the
expenses of the war with France. It was distinctively a war measure.
It was imposed again in 1842 by Sir Robert Peel to meet the deficit
anticipated from the reduction of duties upon imported wheat and
cereals. It was this time imposed as an alternative, and not as a
tax possessing in itself any advantage.
"It has been repeatedly proposed to exempt what have been
called 'precarious incomes,' by those who have realized the
injustice and impolicy of taxing all incomes even so-called
industrial incomes equally, without reference to the source from
which they are derived. But for practical consideration, as subjects
of legislation, stable and precarious incomes would cease to be
matter of distinction. Some incomes are more precarious than others,
but under such a law they would multiply rapidly in the tax returns,
and stable incomes would grow exceedingly scarce. It is to be hoped
than in any income tax which may replace the tariff tax in the
United States all incomes arising from earnings will be exempt. This
will mean the placing of a provision in the system which, cutting
off the principal source of revenue supply, will contain the seeds
of its own abolition.
"The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Inland Revenue (28th
Report), in reply to the objections against a tax which does not
discriminate between incomes arising from investments and those
derivable from labor, says that 'realizable,' or stable, incomes are
charged with other burdens besides the income tax. But it would be
extremely difficult for them to prove that the incomes earned by
labor are not also charged with other burdens.
"Gladstone has been the unsparing critic of, and dextrous
apologist for, the income tax. That it is a tax, the retention of
which serves a good purpose as a deterrent to war, which the
creation of bonded debt encourages, is one of the recommendations
urged for it by the English statesman. But this is true of many
other taxes, though probably not true of a tariff tax, the
beneficiaries of which would, no doubt, eagerly arm themselves to
preserve; but it is not a good reason for retaining an income tax in
preference to all other modes of 'paying as you go.'
"The income tax, at all events, is not a sneaking and
surreptitious tax, like some others. But it is almost equally
demoralizing. At the very time of its introduction into England, Sir
Robert Peel stigmatized it as obnoxious and inquisitorial, and a tax
which ought to be reserved for war. Its operations in England amply
justify what J. R. McCulloch says of it that it is 'a tax on
honesty, and a bounty on, and an incentive to, perjury and fraud.'
"Its inequality is clear. The variations in the schedule from
year to year are an indication of this. 'It is evident that, as far
as the principle of taxing all incomes equally (irrespective of the
source from which they are derived) is concerned, the tax is
practically a failure,' says John Noble, in his work, 'The Queen's
Taxes.'
"An income tax is certain to exempt wealth. Gladstone has
repeatedly declared that on the lower class of incomes the tax is
fully and accurately levied; and, as an English writer says, 'it is
overwhelmingly energetic in minutiae.'
" In whatever way the income tax is assessed, inequality must
result. To assess by arbitrary estimate is taxation by blackmail; to
base assessment OR returns of the payer is to leave the truth-teller
helpless and at the mercy of the liar. It is either taxation by
guesswork or taxation by spies.
"It was at the conclusion of the Crimean war that the income
tax, increased to pay the expenses of the war, aroused the hostility
of the commercial classes of England. We can understand this if we
bear in mind the words of a well-known English economic writer, R.
Dudley Baxter: 'Too large an assessment is often made to keep up
appearances;' or the comment of Lorin A. Lathrop, formerly United
States consul to Bristol: 'Many men in business are said to overpay
rather than appeal.'
"It will appear from this that the income tax fails
practically to meet the recommendations accorded to it in theory, as
most nearly approximating to Adam Smith's maxim, that 'the subjects
of every state ought to pay to the support of government as nearly
as possible in proportion to the revenue which they respectively
enjoy under the protection of the state.'
"In 1860 the Liverpool Financial Reform Association proposed
in lieu of the income tax what they call a 'wealth tax.' Just how
they proposed to levy and collect this I do not know. But it is this
same association which to-day is favorably inclining to a
ground-rent tax in lieu of all other taxes; and whatever view we may
take of the real or assumed defects of such a tax, it argues a
tendency to simplify the theory and application of taxation, and to
reduce to a definite and general principle the confusion of present
methods.
"Now another, though perhaps smaller, question arises. An
income tax is popularly supposed not to distribute itself. It is one
of the few taxes which, like the land-value tax, do not increase
prices. It is, therefore, one of those methods of revenue raising
which is called a direct tax. Economists are in general accord as to
the truth of this. They agree that income taxes are not paid in
increased cost upon articles consumed. This is true.
"But is it true that an income tax cannot be shifted? Leaving
out of consideration the fact that fines upon industry i. e., all
taxes to which an income tax is not exceptional must reduce wealth
by limiting enterprise, and is therefore, in its ultimate effects,
the same as increase of price, which reduces opportunity and lessens
supply, let us inquire if an income tax may not be shifted by an
employer upon labor.
"The reply will of course be that it cannot, as the wages of
labor are fixed by the market rate, and that an employer of labor
will lose his employees the instant he attempts to reduce their
wages below the market rate. He cannot, therefore, make his labor
pay his income tax. Now, this is true of all occupations in which
the rate of wages is determined by the quantity and quality of word,
and in which the number of men engaged is sufficient to establish a
general average of efficiency, and to make a more or less fixed
remuneration per unit of work performed. In these trades there is a
standard of wages which an income tax would not injure. It is true
of all mechanical trades, of the generality of clerks and salesmen,
and of some classes of professional men. But it seems to me to be
not true of all unfixed occupations, such as private secretaries,
housekeepers, governesses, clergymen, private tutors, etc. What, for
example, is the market rate of wages for private secretaries? Their
wages are governed not so much by average efficiency as by the
ability of the employer to pay. An income tax would lessen this
ability.
"Let us not leave the argument here, but press it home. A
natural objection will be that if private secretaries' wages could
be reduced, they would be reduced now, and the employer would not
wait for an income tax to reduce them. This is a fair and reasonable
objection, and looks plausible. But let us suppose the case. You are
an employer of labor, and your income is next year subject to a tax.
Your first effort will be to make up that tax in whatsoever way you
can, in reductioni of wages wherever you may. This is entirely
natural, and is an evidence not so much of the hardness of man's
heart as of the impolicy and injustice of such taxation. No man but
feels dimly conscious that every tax of this kind is an assault upon
his property rights, as it unquestionably is. He shakes it off with
perfect ease in most cases, and always with entire freedom of
conscience.
"The class of men who at the last would pay the income tax
will be, the class that employ private secretaries and similar
specialized labor the wages of which are variously determined by
exceptional ability, personal attachments or accidental causes,
rather than by competition. An income tax would reach this class by
inducing employers to reduce their wages. It would reach them not as
individuals only, but as a class, and tend to lower their wages to a
fixed maximum. And while the wages of men engaged in such
occupations would fall, it would not clearly appear that it was they
and not the employers who were paying the income tax. It ought not
to be forgotten that much of the missing wealth of the poor is to be
sought for in the attempts to reach the rich by taxing them.
"The retrenchment of expenses which the income tax would
desirable to all, and necessary to many who would pay it, would act
this way: The wealthy man would make his first retrenchment in his
expenses, and the wages of waiters and attendants at these
restaurants would fall; in his yachting expenses, which would reduce
the of captain and crew; in his kitchen, which would reduce the
charges, for while Vanderbilt with his princely income could still
continue pay for such services the sum he is said to pay to one
individual of ten thousand dollars a year the men of smaller
incomes, striving to maintain their position in the fashionable
world, would reduce this wages to the class of employees who receive
compensations solely determined by the vanity of social
considerations. Much of the income tax, though by no means all of
it, would be shifted upon the shoulders of these relatively highly
paid but deserving classes of laborers. I do not wish to exaggerate
the importance of what I regard as the inevitable shifting of a
portion of this tax, and I urge it merely in refutation of the
belief generally entertained that it cannot be shifted.
"We have seen how in England the income tax supplied the place
of a protective tariff. It seems ungrateful to quarrel with a tax
which has served such a good purpose in the past and may serve the
same good purpose again. All the disadvantages, moral and material
which pertain to such a tax might be undergone to put a stop to the
practice of legislators who present sophistical pleas in behalf of
American labor, as an incident of recreation from the more serious
business of incorporating into the laws of taxation acts of national
larceny, the disadvantages of such a tax are small in comparison to
the unavolable eleemosynary incidence of even a revenue tariff. And
if this tax is to serve, as now seems probable, as a battering-ram
to beat down the gates where the steel-rail lords, the coal barons,
the jute-baggers and all the other chevaliers d'industrie levy toll
upon every toiler in showroom and factory, upon every Western farmer
in his wheat field, upon every black son of the South in the cotton
lands beneath the broiling heat, then to quarrel over weapons seems
an almost criminal folly.
"It will be remembered how, in the Presidential campaign of
1871 the mad political processions, with the banners and torchlights
which make democracies ridiculous, kept step to the cry, so well
attuned to marching feet, 'Sammy [Samuel J. Tilden], pay your income
tax.' And the great public would never have known nor, indeed, have
greatly cared whether Mr. Tilden had paid it or not, if the charge
had not been brought against him by officers of the Government for
the purpose of injuring his candidacy. And even had he made his
returns with the most scrupulous fidelity to truth, the charge might
still have been yelled by noisy throats in political parades as a
catching campaign cry. It is no minor argument against the income
tax against all taxes the returns of which are not readily
verifiable that they admit of just such charges in times of
political excitement, and for partisan purposes urge men to magnify
the evils of tax evasion in the individual, which is a common
practice among the many.
"To persons of a deficient comprehension of public morality,
the income tax seems a justifiable method of getting something out
of the rich man's coffers. To persons who take predatory views of
taxation, the question as to what right the public has with the rich
man's wealth will seem like the query of an idiot. And yet, if there
is such a thing as national or public morality, it is an extremely
pertinent question.
"The idea seems to be almost universally shared that an income
tax is a just tax because levied only upon those able to pay it.
This is no proof at all of its justice, any more than Dick Turpin's
practice of taking from the rich to give to the poor is an adequate
defense of Turpin's profession. Its advocates may talk of its
justice, but the advocacy is full of a greedy snarl.
"The justification most frequently urged for an income tax is,
it seems to me, its fullest condemnation. Taxation has its ethics;
how can it be right for the public to take from a man merely because
he is rich? Are riches a crime? Are rich men, per se, a danger to
the community? That there are men richer than they ought to be, is
true; that great riches, united with great poverty, menace
civilization, is true; that the constitution of society is such,
that taxation is such, unjustly swell the incomes of the rich, is
also true; but is an income tax therefore a just tax? Think a
moment. There are men of large incomes who earn them. Howe,
McCormack, Goodyear, Edison, are men who returned to society every
penny they received a hundred fold. To deprive them of any portion
of their income is not only unjust but impolitic. We want more
Howes, Goodyears, Edisons, McCormacks, and their fortunes can
scarcely be too large. Society should hold out every inducement to
searchers for the secrets of nature, who harness the elemental and
mechanical forces to do man's bidding, who prepare the way for the
time when mankind, raised infinitely higher, and resting from merely
physical labor, shall devote the godlike powers of mind to the
solution of the deeper problems of their spiritual being.
"A tax on incomes? The income of the coupon cutter and the
inventor! The income of the Astors, whose land earns money while
they sleep, and the income of the man whose genius shall reduce the
cost of making aluminum, thereby revolutionizing a thousand
processes of manufacture! The income of the man whose capital earns
his money, and the income of the man whose brain earns it! The
income of Carnegie and of Dr. Shrady! Of Mr. Gould, and Bell of
telephone fame! Lump all these results of exceptional abilities and
legislative monopolies together, call them incomes, and then swoop
down upon them with a tax!
"The objections against an income tax may be thus summed up:
"In its theory (as a mode of encouraging a more equitable
distribution of wealth), fallacious.
" In its discrimination, unjust and impolitic.
"In its operation, unequal.
"In its practice, inquisitorial and corruptive.
"The reasons which appear to justify an income tax arise from
a superficial analysis of the social problem from that
superficiality which concerns itself with the flowering effects
rather than with the :auses at the root. This superficiality it is
which urges Governors and legislators, who have not the inclination
nor indeed the leisure for the study of these problems, to seek a
remedy for the inequalities in taxation in more rigorous measures of
assessment and collection, with a vain hope of doing, under a
republican form of government, with only the power of civil courts,
what Rome with her tremendous military organization, with rack and
thumb-screw, and England, under King John, with her inquisitorial
surveillance and bodily persecution of the rich Jews of the kingdom,
signally failed to accomplish.
"The problems now crowding in upon the Republic are not to be
solved through any additions to or changes in the restrictive
measures by which the nation has so long cramped and curbed its
energies, taking an eagle for its symbol and moping like a snail,
singing of liberty and binding itself with tariffs, claiming to be a
refuge in which all are equal before the law, yet giving out
manufacturing and trade monopolies to eager and greedy almoners more
lavishly than even good Queen Bess had dared.
"The Republic has come to the parting of the ways. As it turns
from the darkness of tariff laws, let it set its face fairly and
fully toward that liberty in which no man's earnings shall be
subtracted from, and all the natural and helpful activities of
society be left to do their perfect work, free from governmental
interference, which shackles the strong arm of labor, burdens trade
and commerce, destroys individual integrity, and alone prevents the
Republic from taking the position among the nations of the earth to
which her natural advantages so justly entitle her."
|