6]4 



Say^s Catechism of PoUlkal Economy. 



Inid on cntton,. the niaimfaclurers of 

 cottons and the tradesmen vvlio sell ihem 

 Cannot raise the price so hich as to re- 

 cover back tlie amount of tlie taxes; for 

 that purpose it would be neces>ary tliat 

 the same quantity of coiti>n goods should 

 be demanded and sold, and that the 

 society should devote to the purchase 

 of this particular article more values 

 than it hud heretofore devoted ti) it, 

 which is not possible. The cotton goods 

 liecome dearer; their producers gain less, 

 and this kind of production declines. 



What consequence do you draw from 

 that? 



That the impost is paid partly by llie 

 producers, whose profits, i. e. whose in- 

 comes it lessens; and partly by those 

 consumers "ho continue to purchase 

 notwithstanding tiie dearnets, since they 

 pay more for a product, which in point 

 of fact is not more valuable. 



Wiiat other consequence do you draw 

 from it? 



Tliat the impost, in m.iking the pro- 

 ducts dearer, does not augment even 

 nominally the total value of productions ; 

 for the products diminijli in quantity 

 more than they augment in price. 



Does this elTect take place with re- 

 spect to any oiher merchandize than tliat 

 on rvhicii the impost is levied? 



It takes place on all the merchandise 

 which the cnntributor sells. Brewers 

 and bakers sell their products dearer 

 uhen a tax is laid on the wood or cools 

 which they burn. A lax on meat and 

 other eatables at the gates of a ciiy 

 renders all its manufactured products 

 dearer. 



Can all producers make the consumers 

 bear a portion of the imposts witich they 

 are compelled to pa) ? 



There are producers who cannot. An 

 impost laid on an aiticle of luxury bears 

 only on those who consume it. If a lax 

 is laid on lace, tiie wine merchant whose 

 wife wears lace, cannot sell his wine 

 dearer on that account, for he could not 

 maintain a competition with his neigh- 

 bour whose wife does not wear lace. A 

 landholder cannot in general make his 

 consumers bear any portion of the tax lie 

 is compelled to pay.* 



In order not to deceive ourselves as to 



* So long as the tax docs not absorb the 

 ■iviioleof ti>e net profit, or rent of land, it is 

 •\voilh while to cultivate it: consequently 

 the iiupoFt does not diminish the quantity 

 of the territorial products whicli cnnie to 

 ni.arket, and this is never a cause of deur- 

 netii). Whcu tlie iuip;y«l is excessive, it 



the elTect of taxes, how ooght we to 

 consider them? 



As a cause of the destruction of part of 

 the products of society. This destruc. 

 tion takes place at the expense of thosa 

 who are unable to evade or shift it from 

 themselves. The producers and con- 

 sumers pay the value of the products thus 

 destroyed; the first, in not selling their 

 products at a price sufficient to cover the 

 taxes; the second, in paying more for 

 them than they are worth, but in propor- 

 tions wliich vary with every article and 

 every class of individuals. 



We rnay also consider the impost as am 

 augmentation of the charges of produc- 

 tion. It is an expense sustained by the 

 producers and consumers; but which, 

 while it renders the products dearer, 

 does not augment the incomes of the 

 producers, as its amount is not divided 

 among them. Their expenses augment 

 as consumers, without their incomes in- 

 creasing as producers: they are not so 

 rich. 



What is to be understood by a subject 

 of taxation ? 



By those words, is often meant, the 

 merchandise which serves as a basis for 

 (he tax. Brandy, in this sense, is a 

 •* subject of taxation," by means of the 

 duties which are levied on this liquor. 

 But the expression is not correct. Brandy 

 is only a basis for the demand of a value ; 

 a merchandise which the government 

 uses as a means of raising money. The 

 true subject of taxation is, in this case, 

 the income of the individuals »ho manu- 

 facture and consume the brandy. Thus 

 the subject of taxation increases,- when 

 these incomes, whatever be their source, 

 are augmented. 



What do you conclude from that? 



That every thing which tends to in- 

 crease the riches of a nation extends and 

 multiplies the subject of taxation. It is 

 from this cause, that as a country pros- 

 pers the amount of the taxes increases, 

 without increasing the rate of tbetn; and 

 diminishes when it declines. 



Are we justified in cr.nsidering the 



surpasses the net produce of the worst 

 lands, and hinders the improvement of 

 others. Thus territorial products become 

 more rare: still this rirrmnslance does not 

 raise the price in a durable manner, be- 

 cause the population is not long before it 

 arets down to the level of the territorial pro- 

 ducts; if less are offered, less are wanted. 

 For this reason, in these countries which pro- 

 duce little corn, it is not dearer than in those 

 that produce much. It is even cheaper, for 

 reasons wbicli cauuot be developed here. 

 ainouBt 



