In England there is little variation *nom year to year on the gross charges of :ollection, but there is a considerable dis rroportion in the cost of collecting dif brent branches of the revenue. In 1841 he excise cost 61. 7s. 8d. per cent. in the ollection ; the assessed taxes 41. 2s. 9d.; Lod the revenue arising from stamps only 1. 3s. 4d.
The French revenue is collected at a anch greater cost. For some years past he average revenue of that country has seen 1,020,000,000 francs, or 40,000,0004, and the expenses of managing and col lecting that sum have amounted to 150,000,000 francs, or 6,000,0001., being no less than 15 per cent. (Commercial Thriffs, Part ., France, 1842, p. 11.) It is very probable that many items may be included in the French calculation of the expenses of collection which are not stated in the English accounts ; but making liberal allowance on that account, a great disproportion remains between the cost of collecting the revenue in the two countries. It may perhaps be fairly estimated that the revenue of France costs twice as much in the collection as that of England. The expenses of collecting a revenue may be high without any re ference to the mode of taxation. An ex cellent tax may be collected in a bad manner, either by having numerous idle and highly paid officers, or by cumbrous regulations and checks, which may cost the government much and protect the revenue very little. Of these two causes of expense it is difficult to pronounce which is most injurious to a country. The former will generally be found to form part of a general system of ill reguilatecl expenditure; the latter may arise from unwise precautions for the security of the revenue. In France the prodigious number of official persons is notorious, and in that fact we must seek for the main cause of the enormous cost of collecting the revenue.
Afferent Rinds of Taxes.—In selecting taxes for raising the revenue of a state, the principles already discussed should be adhered to as far as possible; but these do not point out any particular mode of taxation as preferable to others. What ever mode of raising the necessary funds may be found to press most equally upon different members of the community, to be least liable to objections of uncertainty, or inconvenience in the mode or times of payment, or to be attended with the least expense, is fairly open to the choice of a statesman ; unless objections of some other nature can be proved to outweigh these recommendations.
The two great divisions under which most taxes may be classed are direct and indirect.
Direct taxes ought to be paid from the income of the community To derive revenue from capital is to act the part of a spendthrift; and such a practice, as in private life, must be con demned. If the taxes of any country should become so disproportioned to its income, that in order to pay them conti nual demands must be made upon its capital, its resources would fail, employ ment of labour would decrease, and the revenue must necessarily be reduced by the general impoverishment of the tax payers. Such a system could not long continue as regards 111 capital, but it may affect particular branches of capital, or all capital in certain conditions. In whatever degree it is permitted to operate it is injurious. A tax upon legacies is a direct deduction from capital ; and on that account objectionable, although it is profitable to the treasury and ve easily collected. [LEGACY, The same observations apply to the probate duty, and to duties charged upon succes sion to the personal property of intestates.
With these exceptions it has been the object of the British legislature to derive all taxes from income, either by direct assessment or by means of the voluntary expenditure of the people upon taxed commodities.
Direct taxes upon the land have been universally resorted to by all nations. In countries without commerce, land is the only soarce from which a revenue can be derived. In most of the Eastern monar chies the greater part of the revenue has usually been raised by heavy taxes upon the soil ; and in Spain, at the present time, the taxes upon the soil are most oppres sive and injurious.
In England, under the Saxon kings, there was a land tax. When the inva sions of the Danes became frequent, it was customary to purchase their forbear ance by large sums of money ; and, as the ordinary revenues of the crown were not sufficient, a tax was imposed on every hide of land in the kingdom. This tax seems to have been first imposed A.D. 991, and was called Danegeld, or Danish tax or tribute. (Saxon Chronicle, by Ingram, p. 168.) It was originally one shilling for each hide of land, but,,after wards rose to seven : it then fell to finer shillings, at which rate it remained till it was abolished, about seventy years after the Norman conquest. (Henry, Hist. vol. iii. p. 368.) A revenue still conti nued to be derived, under different names, from assessments upon all persons holding lands, which, however, became merged in the general subsidies introduced in the reigns of Richard II. and Henry IV. During the troubles in the reign of Charles I. and the Commonwealth, the practice of laying weekly and monthly assessments of specific sums upon the several counties was resorted to, and was found so profitable, that after the Resto ration the ancient mode of granting sub sidies was renewed on two occasions only. (Reportof House of Commons on Land Tax as affecting Catholics, 1828.) In 1692, a new valuation of estates was made, and certain payments were appor tioned to each county and hundred or other division. For upwards of a cen tury the tax was payable under annual acts, and varied in amount, from one shilling in the pound to four shillings ; at which latter sum it was made perpe tual by the 38 Geo. III. c. 60; subject, however, to redemption by the landowners upon certain conditions. But no new valuation of the land has been made, and the proportion chargeable to each district has continued the same as it was in the time of King William III., as regulated by the act of 1692. That assessment is said not to have been accurate even at that time, and of course improved culti vation and the application of capital Suring the last 150 years have completely changed the relative value of different portions of the soil. On account of the generally increased productiveness of land, the tax bears upon the whole a tri fling proportion to the rent, yet its ine quality is very great. For instance, in Bedfordshire, it amounts to 2s. Id. in the pound ; in Surrey, to Is. Id.; in Durham, to 34d.; in Lancashire, to 2d.; and in Scotland, to 2•d. (Appendix to Third Report on Agricultural Distress, 1336, p. 545.) Adam Smith imagined that this tax was borne entirely by the landlords, but this opinion has been proved to be erroneous by modern political economists, who hold that the tax increases. the price of the produce of the land, and is there fore paid by the consumers. The tax is also obviously objectionable on the ground of inequality.