I agree that the same land may be worth more one year than another; but it is impossible by a fluctuating valuation to ascertain that difference over a whole country, to the satisfaction of every one; and although, by fixing it at one rate upon every possession, inequalities must take place, yet fixing it from rising in proportion to improvement, will prove an encouragement to industry, which will greatly overbalance such an inequality. Every one then will be in the way of acquiring an addition to his income, free of land-tax; and if this be thought too great an encouragement to improvement, let the regulation be only fixed for a determinate time; suppose a century. This is no more than giving every one a lease as it were of their land-tax for a hundred years; and experience shews, that without granting long leases it is impossible that lands should ever be improved.
Were innovations practicable, according as right reason and plain principles direct, it is very certain that a land-tax might be imposed in a better way than I have here suggested. But to what purpose would it be to lay down schemes beyond the power of execution, when the principles already deduced so plainly point them out?
Quest. 2. Which is the best method of levying taxes; by farm, or by the management of commissioners appointed by the state?
The best way to answer this question, is to shew the inconveniences and advantages of both. The arguments against farming are,
1mo, The great fortunes made by the farmers occasion jealousy, and expose to the eyes of the people a set of men who are become rich at their expence; hence envy arises, and hatred against government.
2do, In years of scarcity, war, or public calamity, deductions of the rent, or annual sums paid by the farmers, are demanded, and can hardly be refused, and the farmers always overvalue their loss; here therefore is an unequal bargain: the farmer must gain, the state may lose.
3tio, The people pay less willingly to the farmers than to the King; magistrates in general support the raising of duties with more unwillingness, and severities upon delinquents are less easily born.
These inconveniences are avoided in the management. There men of the best abilities may be entrusted with that employment; experience shews that many branches of taxation have been carried to great perfection under management, and men of probity and capacity will act with as great zeal for the public as for themselves.
The principal arguments for farming are; the advantage of having a fixed and certain revenue to depend on at regular terms; that the farmers act with more zeal for themselves, and with greater impartiality in employing under-officers, as well as more frugality, and therefore can afford to give a higher rent, with considerable profit to themselves, than can be made effectual under the best management: besides, every one judges himself capable to administer the King’s affairs, because he finds profit in it; but people think twice before they undertake to be farmers of a revenue they do not well understand.
In the administration of taxes, it ought to be the object of a statesman’s attention and care to profit of every advantage attending the different modes of levying them. It is not sufficient to inquire into the general consequences of the two modes of administration, the management and the farming of taxes: those of the cumulative kind especially, affecting the lower classes, would be very improper objects of a farm; because it would be in a manner delivering over the greater part of a people to the rapacity of tax-gatherers.