15 MARCH 1851, Page 11

RENEWAL OF THE INCOME-TAX.

A. TAX on income, it must be admitted, has both recommenda- tions-and drawbacks. In a rich community it is highly productive of revenue at a low rate of assessment, and being a direct tax is subject to little diminution from expense of collection. It has the further convenience to the financier that it is a very adaptive im- post—can be readily made to suit any public exigency great or small, by simple adjustment of the percentage of payment; neither do fluctuations in its amount, like those in excise or customs-duties, work any disturbance in the settled pursuits of trade, manufac- tures, or other industry. Distinct from these, it possesses the great advantage, as now imposed, of exempting the poorer and falling on the richer classes of society, and this without leaving to any on whom it is ostensibly levied lawful means of evasion. This last is a strong recommendation; most other taxes being partially or wholly evaded by those who ought to pay them,—taxes on con- sumption, for instance, by abstaining from the taxed articles ; and many direct taxes, as those on land, houses, or windows, may be shunned by not owning or occupying the more liable descriptions of property. Fundholders, shareholders, officials, and others en- joying facilities in choice of residence, may thus frequently escape their due burden ; but a tax on incomes reaches all that are meant to be reached, and must be paid—if the parties are conscientious. 'Against these claims is the undeniable set-off that an income-tax is an inquisitorial and vexatious impost. Nobody likes their amount of subsistence-money or outgoings to be scrutinized and reported upon ; it violates the privacies -of life. But this inroad may not be so utterly repulsive as is commonly imagined. In a general way people like to spread as much canvass as they are able, to live and show according to their means, and have no ob- jection that the world should know what those means are, espe- cially if ample. The house, the equipage, number of pleasure horses or servants, alwayss(411; and a shrewd guess may be formed of most persons' incomes without an insight into tax-papers, from style of living, social circle, occupation or profession. A far greater abomination, in our estimate, is the radical injustice of the tax in falling with the like pressure on stable and precarious revenues. This forms an overwhelming counterbalance to all its benefits, and the chief source of outcry against it. Assessing at the same rate incomes from real property and personal industry, is manifestly confounding values entirely different—different in ori- gin, permanence, and virtual appraisement. Land is a perennial spring, the same today as yesterday, to the present possessor and his next descendant ; but incomes from trade or professions are uncertain as life, health, ability, war or peace, and all the other unappreciable contingencies flesh is heir to. Glaring as the injus- tice is, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has intimated that it is a wrong without remedy ; at least the grievance cannot be alle- viated without upsetting the entire scheme of an income-tax. But in this, we think, he has come to a hasty conclusion.

The Income-tax is not a simple, homogeneous assessment; it is not like a bread-tax or poll-tax, that touches everything or every- body : it is an impost already replete with anomalies—exceptions, distinctions, and graduations. First, all incomes below a certain amount are exempt; Ireland is wholly free from income-tax ; tenant-farmers in Scotland pay a lower rate of assessment than tenant-farmers in England ; and the farmers of both kingdoms are taxed at a lower rate than their landlords. With all these divari- cations, it assuredly would not be a great addition to add another in schedule D, by reducing the assessment on " profits and gains " one half—that is, to the same rate of 3;c1. per pound paid by Eng- lish occupiers.

For this principle of assimilation a solid reason may be urged. What is a merchant, trader, or professional, but an occupier—a tenant for life or shorter term of the sources of his income ? and why should he be differently taxed—taxed like a landlord, whose revenue is fixed and indefeasible? He is truly an industrial, and ought to be placed with other industrials—those of the soil—in schedule B, not schedule D. With this transposition, the Income- tax might be bearable a few years longer, or till time had been al- lowed for more urgent or politic reliefs.