Page:American Journal of Sociology Volume 4.djvu/781

 TAXA TION AND THE PHIL OSOPHY OF THE STA TE 76 1

unjust and unequal. The apparent uniformity which deceives the superficial is achieved at the expense of real uniformity. A German economist, K. H. Rau, lays down the following princi- ple : "A given sum of money possesses the higher value for its owner, the greater a proportion of his aggregate disposable goods it constitutes, and the greater a portion it consequently repre- sents of the aggregate enjoyments at his command, especially in case the one who is to be deprived of a given sum will have to stint himself in expenditures for the most necessary articles in order to afford it." This principle, as shown in the recently translated work on The Science of Finance, \>y Professor Gustav Cohn, of the Gottingen university, leads to the progressive basis of taxation. For the smaller the income of a household is, the more will a given sum levied as tax abstract from the means required for pressing necessities, and the tax will fall so much the heavier on the particular household ; on the other hand, the larger the income, the more will the tax tend to fall on less pressing or even trivial needs, and will consequently exert but a slight pressure or none at all. This point was once tersely and vigorously expressed by Frederic the Great in an official state- ment. "A wealthy man," he said, "possessing an income of 5,000 thalers might well be able to spare one-half of it, as he could still live, while a poor man, having an income of 80 thalers, could not spare one-half, as it would leave him nothing to live on. In the case of this latter, he would have done his part if he contributed one thaler."

The "equality-of-sacrifice" or "ability-to-pay" principle rests on another important consideration which the proportional taxa- tionists overlook or deny. It is well stated by Professor Cohn in the following passage :

The enjoyment of peace and civil liberty is unquestionably a privilege of very unequal value to different members of the commonwealth. The fact that these advantages cannot be measured or apportioned by no means pre- vents the rich and the poor deriving very widely different benefits from them. One who is able to call his own, not merely a bare existence, but also an extensive estate, who may be exposed to the violence of the foreign armies or domestic malefactors, not only in his person, but also in his property, is enti- tled, or, rather, he is in duty bound, to look upon the institutions which secure