So far with regard to the seller: next as to the buyer.
The buyer appears at market with his money. When he comes there he must give, first, an equivalent for the prime cost of the merchandize; that is, he must refund every expence necessarily incurred in producing it; or he must refund the value of (A). Next, the industrious man has a claim upon him for his profits, viz. his (B). Then comes the state, who claims a part of his wealth, in regard that he is going to purchase what his own industry has not produced. This is the tax; I shall call it (C). This tax will be found of the proportional kind. It will not affect the growing wealth of the seller, but it will accelerate the dissipation of the buyer; and will pull down the scale against him, in favour of the industrious. This is a proper tax, in countries where the state observes the maxim of sharing the wealth of those who dissipate.
Let us now take in another combination. Let us suppose this buyer to be an industrious person, and the thing bought to be a necessary material for the manufacture in which he is employed. Is it not plain, that when the second industrious man comes to market to sell his work, which I also suppose composed of his (A) and his (B), that his (A) is a still more compounded body? It first includes his own physical-necessary, as above: 2. the (A) and (B) of the man from whom he bought the materials: and 3. the (C) which he paid to the state for the liberty of acquiring what he himself had not produced.
Whoever therefore buys from the second industrious man, must, in like manner, refund to him his full (A); he must also pay him his (B); and then he will find the state claiming their (C), as in the former operation.
This being done, let us examine the interests of all parties. The first industrious man has no reason to complain of the tax; because he was paid his necessary expence (A), and also his (B) for his profit; and the state realized the tax at the expence of the second industrious man, who paid it. Now we said that the dissipation of his wealth was accelerated in proportion to the value of what he paid for (C); but as he is none of the idle, and as the thing bought was a material necessary for his manufacture, the second buyer finds himself obliged to refund the whole amount of the first (A), (B), (C); because the sum of them make a part of the second man’s (A). Now it is the refunding of this (C) to the industrious man which is the only circumstance, from which proceeds the rise in the price of commodities, in consequence of proportional taxes. Moreover, the second buyer must pay the second industrious man’s (B), in favour of the balance which is going to turn against him; and last of all, he must pay the second (C), which is the share the state requires of him, in order to accelerate his dissipation.
Now let us observe, that if the commodity bought by the second industrious man, be not necessary for the existence of his manufacture, it cannot enter into his (A), and therefore must be diminished upon his (B); and if his (B) cannot pay it, then he will owe it to some body, and for the future must either abstain from such expences, or leave off working, in favour of those who can live without them.
Let me illustrate all this by an example.
A tanner sells his leather to a shoemaker; the shoemaker in paying the tanner for his leather, pays the tanner’s subsistence and profit, and the tax upon leather.
The man who buys the shoes for his own consumption, refunds all this to the shoemaker, together with his subsistence, profit, and the tax upon shoes; consequently, the price of shoes are raised, only by refunding the taxes paid by the industrious.
But if the shoemaker’s subsistence shall happen to include either tavern expences, or his consumption on idle days, he will not draw these back; because other shoemakers who do not frequent the tavern, and who are not idle, will undersell him: he must therefore take his extraordinary expence out of his profits; and if his profit be not sufficient, he must run in debt to the tavern-keeper.