The reformed Income Tax and Death Duties of 1909 will furnish, with all their faults, a handsome revenue, and it may already be claimed that what was urged in "Riches and Poverty," edition 1905, as to the means of national regeneration, has been amply verified by accomplished facts.
CHAPTER XXIII
OF REVENUE WITHOUT TAXATION
AFTER dealing at some length with the details of British taxation it is well to point out why it is necessary for the British Government to raise so much revenue by taxes.
It appears to be commonly taken for granted that in the matter of national ways and means a source of revenue is the same thing as a source of taxation. Perhaps it is not surprising that this idea is prevalent in Britain, for of a truth we have scarcely any national revenue save what is derived from the more or less just taxation of British citizens.
Save in its power to levy taxes, the United Kingdom, as a State, is one of the poorest in the world.
The British Government, as compared with many other governments, is singularly lacking in property. It follows that it is singularly lacking in natural State revenue. As a matter of fact, the only items of British State property worth mentioning are (1) the Post Office, which brings in about £5,000,000 a year; (2) a few Crown lands, which bring in about £500,000 a year; and (3) The Suez Canal shares, bought by Lord Beaconsfield, which bring in about £1,000,000 a year.
The total British State revenue from property is thus about £6,500,000, and that is all. If the Government wants any more money it has to tax the governed, a fact which arouses various emotions.
The consequence is that, as public expenses increase, our taxes constantly swell. The items of natural State revenue are too small, even if elastic, to meet the growing bills. This is found out by all parties. A politician out of office may, and usually does, denounce new taxes, but we never find the same politician, after taking office, taking off the taxes he has denounced; he simply cannot do it. The Conservatives, it will be remembered, were unfriendly to Sir William Harcourt's Death Duties, but when they came into power they not only did not repeal them, but it is a fact that they seriously considered increasing them.
I do not think it can be reasonably alleged that taxation has yet reached an intolerable level, indeed the facts on that head are sufficiently made plain in these pages. At the same time, I suppose that none of us desires to increase the burden of taxation more than is necessary.