THE INCOME OF INCOME-TAX PAYERS.

[To THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."] SIR,—As the income of income-tax payers is often adduced to excuse or foster various forms of unrest, your readers may be glad to have the figures of the recently published Inland Revenue Report (Cd. 6344, price ls. 5d.) dissected for them. The figure usually quoted is that of the gross income shown on p. 101. This is for 1910-11 no less than 1046 millions (nearly)—a figure imposing in itself, and showing an increase over the previous year of 341 millions, an obvious topic for declamation. Unfortunately this " gross income " is, as the Report clearly states, only the "gross income brought under the review of the Department," and there falls to be deducted from it— Because income was under.2100

• • •

58 millions.

By way of abatement

124i „ As insurance premiums

• • •

111

„ Belonging to charities, &c. Repairs and wear and tear ...

• ••

121 n Allowed at the "review"

741

„ 3481 These deductions reduce the total on which income-tax was paid to 697 millions.

Even this sum, of course, is a gross overstatement of the income "enjoyed by the rich." From it has to be deducted the income of local authorities (their gross assessment was 251 millions, p. 131), income tax (381 millions), and other taxes paid, provision for expenses, depreciation, and loss not allowed by the tax collector; and duplication of the same income must be allowed for, as when a landlord pays under Schedule A on his rents, and his agent or bailiff under Schedule C on his salary, which comes out of those rents. And the Socialist State which attempted to diminish the income would have to provide something for the present taxpayer and his employees, and, above all, for new capital required for industry. The 697 millions would sink to a much smaller sum—bow much smaller it is impossible to say.

What is clear is that the 697 millions is not increasing satisfactorily. It is ten millions above the corresponding figures for 1909-10, a poor result in itself, considering that savings have been invested, population has increased, and the activity of the tax-collector has everywhere screwed up the assessments. But even this increase disappears in the light of the note on page 99, that owing to the delay in passing the Finance Bill for the year 1909-10 the figures of the total assessments and of the net produce are somewhat lower for 1909-10, and somewhat higher for 1910-11, than they would have been in normal circumstances. We have obviously to go back, not to 1909-10, but to 1908-9, when income-tax was paid on 693J millions, against the 697 millions of 1910-1L The conclusion seems irresistible : the taxable income of income- tax payers in this country at the present time is for all practical purposes stationary.—I am, Sir, &c.,

STATISTICIAN.