Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 4.djvu/778

 TAXATION AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE STATE.

The question of the basis and principles of taxation used to be regarded as purely and strictly of an economic character. Today the sociological significance of taxation is very generally recognized, but it may be doubted whether the average writer upon the subject sufficiently realizes the close and vital connec- tion between theories of taxation and conceptions of the nature and province of the state. The animated controversy between determined upholders of the so-called "American " principles of proportionality and uniformity in taxation, and the champions of the progressive or alleged "socialistic" principle, maybe profitably reviewed here from a sociological, as distinguished from a politico-economic, point of view.

We know that progressive or graduated taxation has gained considerable ground in the United States, despite strenuous and specious opposition. Ohio and Illinois have passed progressive inheritance- or transfer-tax laws, and these laws have been sus- tained, not only in the state courts, but in the highest federal court as well. The clear and vigorous decision in the Illinois case rendered by the United States supreme court disposes effectually and finally of the shallow contention that progressive taxation is violative of the constitutional guarantees of " equal protection of the law." State legislatures are now perfectly free to pass graduated income- and inheritance-tax laws, making amount of property possessed or inherited the basis of classifi- cation and discrimination. The federal constitution interposes no obstacle, and the question is properly referred to ethical and sociological principles, to "public policy."

Is progressive taxation unjust, unequal, and dangerous ? Is it to be regarded as an entering wedge for confiscatory and socialistic legislation, and does it involve arbitrary discrimination against the well-to-do ? If so, it is of course to be profoundly regretted that the Fourteenth Amendment, as now interpreted by the supreme court, does not prohibit it, and it becomes the

7S8