NOTES AND ABSTRACTS
A Sociological View of Taxation. There are three points from which to view taxation financial, economic, sociological. The latter is most compre- hensive, so much so that we may get guidance from the laws of nature. Looking, then, to natural laws, we find that energy is taxed ; every living being must exert energy to secure food and sustenance. The law of nature is : Diminish taxation as ability increases ; the law of economics is : Increase taxation as ability increases. The lower we descend the scale of life, the greater is the proportion which nature's tax bears to the entire energy of the individual. It is the same in the human race, no matter whether the individuals are free or restricted. As the standard of ability rises, the individual units exert a greater modifying effect on this law ; the higher the order, the greater the voluntary effort exerted by the strong for the weak. This modification of nature's law or nature's system of taxation renders the subject before us complex.
The question is how much shall we superiors tax our energies for our wasteful inferiors? What shall we expect in return for such tax? What is the object of giving support to the useless members of society? Of course, " faith, charity, and humanity," are answers. ,
In generosity economists believe perhaps the weak and inferiors are subjects of the existing system of government. What kind of government interference is desirable ? Professor A. W. Flux points out two fallacies : first, thinking what benefits the individual will benefit the whole community it may be an injury to the community ; second, that the individual will always devote himself to what is best for him ; he does not always know what is best for him. Now, why should the government concern itself with the welfare of those incapable of judging their own best interests ? Because humane, and because " state outlay is a part of the consumption of society, of which the state is the regulating organ." The state is justified in providing for requirements by means of taxation. Sociological inquiry wants to know the nature of those requirements, in order to promote the greatest social and evolutionary advancement. Now, on what principle should our system of taxation be based ?
The source of all prosperity is power to produce " productive goods." We go beyond this to seek the principle by which the energies may be directed, through taxation, so as to secure control and increase that control over the forces of nature. We call this " giving-power," which means not only power to produce productive goods, but also such an application of energy as to increase its own self. Each individual should conserve to himself an average giving-power, and an average giving-power to increase the community. Our system of taxation should encourage mutual helpfulness by conserving the energy of those making personal sacrifice for all, and also diminish the energy of those consuming without return.
Present taxation is not synonymous with voluntary sacrifice ; it implies com- pulsion. Professor Bastable's definition is " a compulsory contribution of the wealth of a person for the service of the public powers." Parting with ill-got gain is not a sacrifice proportional to parting with the physical necessities of the wage-earner. To define the sociological ideal of taxation, the word " energy " must be substituted for the word " wealth " in Professor Bastable's definition. To make a willing sacrifice of giving-power for a tax would make a complete change in our social system.
Ethical considerations introduced into taxation make a paradox. But the problem is not what the individual should do or be made to do, but what the state should do in the matter of taxation. The sociological solution is : the state should make the individual conserve giving-power. The state should make the individual save the energy so easily wasted, then collect a tax in accordance with ability. The best way to impress the unconscious wasters of evolutionary power is through
435
