176 REPORT—1862. 
necessarily violate the just principles of taxation; and, secondly, that “a uniform 
income-tax does so to a greater extent than there is any necessity for. Taking as 
the principles of taxation those laid down as such by Adam Smith, and adopted 
by Ricardo and John Stuart Mill, the writer undertook to prove that the least ob- 
jectionable income-tax must needs infringe three of Adam Smith’s four maxims, 
nstead of being levied at the time and in the manner most convenient to the con- 
tributor, an income-tax is levied at the most inconvenient time and in the most 
offensive. manner. A man pays his customs or excise dues a little at a time, and 
chooses his own time for paying,—never, of course, volunteering to pay, except 
when he has wherewithal to pay. But the income-tax comes upon him both all 
at once and just at the very time when he is beset with his half-yearly bills, levy- 
ing a pitiless percentage on his means of meeting them. It lays him, too, on the 
rack, endeavours to extort a confession from him, and leaves him no alternative but 
to criminate or to perjure himself. Then, the income-tax is levied most unequally. 
It is assessed, not, as Adam Smith says it should be, in proportion to a man’s 
ability, but in proportion to his honesty. An income-tax must often be, to a certain 
extent, a matter of conscience. Those who have no conscience may partially evade 
it by lying; and thus it acts as a bounty upon lying, anda tax upon truth. The 
honest man bears the full burden; the dishonest goes comparatively free. This is 
a vice inherent in and inseparable from every income-tax whatsoever. ‘There must 
always be this to counterbalance any virtues it may possess. True, it has the merit 
of raising a revenue more effectually than any other expedient, but at what cost 
does it do so? The mere pecuniary cost of its collection may perhaps be moderate 
as compared with that of the customs or excise, but money is not the sole element 
of cost. The mcome-tax is collected at the expense of the national honesty. It 
offers a powerful temptation to every commercial and every professional man to tell 
one deliberate falsehood, to commit one gross act of fraud, every year, and it is 
certain that a large majority of commercial and professional men yield to the 
temptation; for, from the last returns, it appears that there are, in Great Britain, 
only 6066 persons in trades or professions honest enough to confess that they make 
more than £500 and less than £600 a year; only 6020 who confess to more than 
£1000 and less than £2000 a year; only 997 persons who confess to £5000 and less 
than £10,000. Since it cannot be supposed that people who cheat regularly once 
a year will cheat only once a year, or that, beginning with cheating government, 
they will end without cheating their customers, it is plain that the income-tax is 
undermining the national honesty, and consequently that commercial prosperity 
also of which national honesty is one of the bases. Although then an income-tax 
may possibly not take out of people’s pockets a great deal more than is paid into 
the exchequer, it is calculated to keep out a great deal that would otherwise have 
entered. 
Considering it to be thus apparent that every income-tax must necessarily be at 
variance with just principles, Mr. Thornton proceeded to argue that a uniform 
income-tax violates them to a needless extent. It does so by superadding to the 
inequality and injustice inseparable from every income-tax an inequality and 
injustice peculiar to itself. This is implied by its very name—a uniform in- 
come-tax, 7. e. a tax levied at the same rate on all incomes. But, says Adam 
Smith, every one should pay taxes in proportion to his ability. His ability to do 
what? Obviously in proportion to his ability to pay taxes. But such ability by 
no means corresponds with income. To illustrate this point, Mr. Thornton sup- 
posed two persons, each with £1000 a year, but the one a bachelor, and the other 
aman with a family. Both have the same income, but their ability to bear taxa- 
tion is very different; or, to use Ricardo’s application of Adam Smith’s principle, 
equal taxation requires from them very unequal sacrifices. Consequently, a tax 
assessed at the same rate on all incomes, without reference to the varying amount 
of claims on those incomes, is not assessed “in proportion to the respective abilities 
of the several contributors.” Moreover the income-tax is the only tax at present 
in use amongst us which does affect incomes without regard to other claims upon 
them. A prudent family man, by living in a cheaper situation, by keeping only 
female servants, by walking on foot or riding only in cabs or hgiebuseks by 
eschewing cigars, and drinking beer or spirits instead of wine, may always manage 
