INDIRECT TAXATION. I 59 



We speak advisedly when we say — it cannot be uttered 

 too often — that ''indirect taxation is a cowardly, mean, 

 unjust method of drawing from the small incomes of 

 the people at large, vast aggregate amounts, which, if 

 proportionately borne by the rich, would result in their 

 immediate rebellion." This brings us to consider the 

 fact that through our indirect tax we are continually in- 

 creasing the violation of another most important canon 

 of taxation — to wit, the levying of taxation in just 

 proportion between rich and poor. 



Adam Smith's rule as to equality was, that "the sub- 

 jects of every state ought to contribute toward the 

 support of the government as nearly as possible in pro- 

 portion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy 

 under the protection of the state." This canon must 

 stand as the citadel of justice in schemes for obtaining 

 public revenue ; for the power of private revenue in 

 society increases to the individual possessing it, as reve- 

 nue is augmented from that of yielding what may barely 

 suffice for existence to that of affluence and luxury. 



Placing the bearings of indirect taxation on consump- 

 tion at say 15 per cent., we will have the family whose 

 total income is $240, with the bare necessities of exist- 

 ence requiring an outlay of ^200 before indirect taxes 

 are paid, contributing $30 for revenue, or 12.5 per cent, 

 of total income ; while, -on the other hand, the family 

 whose income is $10,000, living in comparative luxury 

 on an outlay of $5,000, will be paying $750 in taxes, or 

 only 7 1 per cent, on total income. One will be paying 

 75 per cent, of possible savings — the true consideration 

 in estimating the incidence of taxation ; the other, less 

 than 8 per cent. The million-dollar income contributes 

 I to i|- per cent, for revenue, and the so-called poor 



