Page:Indian Journal of Economics Volume 2.djvu/254

 '242 idea of taxable capacity, l'et me qnote a well author, Mr. Charles S. Devas  on this snbject. nation of taxable capacity" importance, and is not the absolute limit country of what can be extracted from the tence" and "according to" are ,extremely vague. Before proceeding to give greater precision to the known "The he writes "is of great in each people by taxation, bnt rather is that limit of taxation which i! habitually exceeded indicates over-taxation. To jndge of this limit we mnst recall the chapter on the theory of human of consumption regarding the limitation wants, the distinction of necessa)'ies and superfluities, the meaning of absolnte and and of the standard of life. that whenever taxation, snperfinities, makes an conventional conventional necessaries Then we can lay down instead of being drawn from encroachment on absolute or necessaries, and threatens to lower the standard of life, the people are being taxed above tleir taxable capacity." It is a mistake, he adds, "to adopt some percentage of the total income of a conntry as the criterion o! over*taxation, and to say, for example, that as long as no more than 10 or 12 per cent of that income is taken for purposes of State, there is no over- taxation. In reality, this criterion is nnsound, because the sae percentage in one country might leave over an abundance of superfinities, in another might encroach npon necessaries. It is not then income simply that is the proper object of taxation, but what may be called snperfluous or snrplns income, is available after absolnte and conyen- necessaries have been satisfied; and the grear the greater the taxable capacity namely, 'what tional this of the pl ' sur us mcone country ". The only weak point ia this definition o[ Mr. Deras  PoNtlent Ecowmj (Longmann, Green & Co. ), OLd edi$1on;