OBSERVATIONS UPON THE ACT FOR TAXING INCO ME. T HE fatisfactory manner in which the Public received the Explanatory Obfervations upon the Aid and Contribution Act of laft Year, has induced a fimilar attempt with refpect to the Act substituted in its place for a Contribu tion upon Income. The reafons given by the Legislature for that fubftitution are, the fundry inftances of evafion experienced in the exe→ cution of the former Act, and the inadequacy of its provifions in proportioning the affeffments upon each perfon to his means of contributing to the public fervice. These reafons evince the intention of the Legiflature to establish an equality of Taxation, as far as it is practicable by human means; and to keep in view in the provifions of the prefent Act the leading object of the former; namely, the afcertainment, by juft and fair rules, of each perfon's Income, in order to a proportionate Affeffment. The time and attention bestowed by the Legislature in the difcuffion of the present Act, in its progrefs through Parliament, may have occafioned a fuppofition, that in principle there is a material difference between the Act of last year and the prefent: it may therefore greatly promote a right underftanding of the fubject to recollect that, in the difcuffion, the time of Parliament has not been employed in examining the princi-, ple ple of either Act (for that principle has been uniformly ad mitted to be juft, and exactly fimilar in both Acts), but in fettling the mode of carrying that principle into effect. The raifing a large portion of the fupplies neceffary for the profecution of the war within the year may be confidered as the leading political object; and the Contribution of the tenth part of the Income of the Community as the principle of both meafures. The only effential difference between them confifts in the modes adopted for afcertaining and raising that contribution. Under the former Act, the various fcales of affeffment, by which, in the first instance, a different rate was impofed on perfons according to the amount of their refpective Affeffed Taxes, are not to be confidered as involving the principle of the Act, but as the means of enforcing the principle. On the fame ground, the provifions exempting from contribution perfons not having an Income of £.60 per annum, and the scales of contribution for thofe having Incomes between £60 and f.200 per annum, are not to be confidered as making part of the principle of either measure, but must be Interpreted as exemptions and modifications, admitted by the Legislature, in favour of certain claffes of the community, from a wife and liberal confideration of their circumftances, and a difinterefted wish to relieve them, by an extended facrifice of the interests of the more opulent part of the community, as far as was confiftent with the principle of the Tax. It must be in general recollection, that the criterion taken faft year, as the means of afcertaining Income, was expenditure, as evidenced by certain articles of general establishment only, and was even then admitted to be in many respects imperfect; but that was the only criterion that could, conformable to any mode of taxation before practifed, be reforted to as affording a probable means of afcertaining the amount of Income of individuals by a relative view to their expenditure. It was fallacious inafuch as it included fome and wholly excluded others: as it included fome in different proportions to their refpective means; and as from the nature of the criterion it did not embrace a large portion of the property of the community enjoyed by political bodies or perfons not objects of thofe affeffments which conftituted the bafis of that contribution. It was alfo fallacious, fnafmuch as, from a regard to antecedent prejudices, it fail ed to enforce its principle, by compelling a difclofure of In come: it left each individual to interpret the rules, and to eftimate his Income, without controul, according to his private bias; it involved the honeft and loyal, whilft the dishoneft or difaffected efcaped under their own interpretation. These imperfections being feen and admitted, it became the province of the Legiflature to provide an adequate remedy, which they were enabled more effectually to do by an almost universal conviction having pervaded the public mind of the neceffity of meeting the exigencies of the times by perfonal taxation, in proportion to the means of the individual; and by a fimilar determination to fuffer the prejudice, arifing from the apprehenfion of a disclosure of circumstances, to fubfide in favour of an effective and certain mode of enforcing the juft principle of equal taxation. The Income of Perfons prefents itself as the most obvious fubject of equal taxation, without permanently affecting property from which the Income is derived. Income is continually renewing itfelf. The amount is afcertainable by pofitive evidence, and cannot be a fubject of difficult enquiry, and feems peculiarly adapted to be the fubject of a tax to provide for annual fupplies. The disclosure of Income however may, under certain circumftances, prove detrimental to the intereft, the views, or the expectations of the poffeffors: to guard against fuch poffible injuries has been the fincere and laudable effort of the Legiflature. In the last Act, Income was the ultimate means of reducing an affeffment founded on the amount of former affeffments; in the present, it is made the primary means of afcertaining the affeffment: both lead to the fame end; of affeffing every part of the community to the amount of one tenth of the Income poffeffed by them; but purfue different modes to obtain that end. It is obvious that the neceffity of afcertaining Income, as the foundation of charge in the first inftance, is calculated to bring forward more effectually every defcription of Income in the country, than the former mode; which left unaffeffed a very large portion of the Income of many, whofe habits of expence were disproportionate to their means. |