Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 4.djvu/779

 TAXA TION AND THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE STA TE 759

duty of enlightened men to warn state legislatures and Congress against this pernicious principle of taxation. This is precisely what Mr. William D. Guthrie, the able New York lawyer, affirms in his excellent work, just published, on The Fourteenth Amendment. To quote Mr. Guthrie :

Expediency or prejudice may hereafter prompt attempts at progressive taxes, or tax laws exempting those of moderate means ; but we shall pay a fearful price if we introduce any such principle into our legislation. Equality of burden, by making every man according to his means a contributor to the expenses of the state, is one of the most wholesome things in uur civil institu- tions. . .. If progressive or unequal taxes are permitted, the time cannot be dis- tant when the majority of the voters will confiscate private property under the cloak or pretense of taxation, and the worst follies and crimes of history will be repeated. (P. 140.)

This is strong language, but it is not argument. The reason- ing of those who share Mr. Guthrie's views may be thus summa- rized : "The government is pledged to protect all citizens in the exercise of their freedoms and faculties, and if some, through superior intelligence and industry, earn more than others, it is wrong and short-sighted to punish them for their superior quali- fications ; and to tax them at 3. higher rate than others is to discour- age intelligence and weaken incentive to labor and thrift." But how is it proposed to prove the injustice, the vice, of progressi\e taxation ? Question-begging and hard names aside, on what principle is it contended that all persons and all property must be taxed nt the same rate ?

If those who violently denounce progressive taxation as "socialistic" were logical and unterrified individualists, and consistently followed the doctrine that government is an insur- ance company for the mere protection of personal and property rights, they could with propriety advocate a system of taxation under which cost would determine the premium. It is more expensive and burdensome to a government, regarded as an insurance agency, to protect tangible than intangible forms of property, to protect improvements or land than securities or specie, and those who espouse the Spencerian or strictly individ- ualistic view of the functions and province of government cannot be expected to favor any other basis of taxation than cost or pain to