party to redeem its promise in this regard. Many changes of rates were made, both downwards and upwards. It was estimated that rates were reduced in 584 instances, affecting 20 per cent of imports. These changes included placing hides upon the free list (before taxed 15 per cent), and cutting down the rate on leather, shoes, coal, lumber, iron ore, pig iron, and steel-rails. But on the other hand rates were increased in 300 instances (including many items in the cotton schedule). The general belief that little reduction was effected, on the whole, was confirmed by the experience under the act. As compared with the last two years (1908-1909) of the Dingley tariff the first two years of the Payne-Aldrich tariff showed a decline of 1.5 per cent, and on free and dutiable a decline of less than 3 per cent. These reductions in the statistical results are no greater than occurred within like periods while the Dingley act continued in operation without change.[10]
No other tariff since “the act of abominations” in 1828 has called forth such widespread criticism as this one, and the tariff became a leading issue in the campaign of 1912. After 1910, the House being Democratic, many bills to reduce duties were presented, and some were passed by both houses, but all were vetoed by President Taft mainly on the ground that it would be best to await the report of the tariff board which had been authorized and appointed for the purpose of ascertaining the cost of production referred to in the “true principle of protection.”
Sec. 13. #The Underwood tariff, 1913#. After President Wilson was inaugurated, March 4, 1913, the tariff was at once taken up by Congress. The general features of the act that was passed were as follows:
(a) Considerable additions to the free list of raw materials.
(b) Abolition of compensatory duties corresponding with the old rates on raw materials.
(c) Replacement of specific by _ad valorem_ rates in many cases.
(d) Taxation of plain kinds of goods less than fancy kinds–luxuries higher than necessities.
(e) Reduction of rates generally (most of the few increases being to correct some evident error in the old law).
(f) Application of the so-called competitive principle to rates intended to be protective, viz., to leave the rate just barely high enough to keep out foreign products.[11]
Articles placed on the free list were raw wool (which had borne a rate equivalent to about 44 per cent), metals, agricultural implements, raw sugar (the lower rate to go into effect gradually), coal, lumber, many agricultural products including live cattle, meats, wheat, corn, flax, tea, and hemp, and numerous manufactures including boots, shoes, gunpowder, wood pulp, and print paper.
Moderate reductions were made in the schedules for chemicals, earths, cotton goods, and sundries, while rates on various luxuries were either unchanged or raised. Left almost unchanged were the schedules for tobacco, for spirits and wines, and for silks (already very high).
This act was signed October 3, 1913, and had been in operation about nine months when the great war broke out in August, 1914. What its effects would have been under normal conditions we can judge little from the actual experience. The first eight months that the act was in operation, the _ad valorem_ rate on dutiable goods proved to be 36 per cent (about 4 per cent less than in the preceding year) and the rate on free and dutiable together about 14 per cent (over 3 per cent less than the preceding year). The first complete fiscal year (that of 1915) under the act, the average rate on dutiable goods was 33.5 per cent and that on all imports was 12.5 per cent. Evidently this is far from a “free trade tariff.” The reduction in the average _ad valorem_ rate is less than was expected. Many of the reductions had little effect, the former rate having been much higher than was needed to exclude the goods. In other cases the old rates were but nominal and inoperative because they were upon goods regularly exported, not imported (e.g., farm products, cotton goods, and some other manufactures). But some of the reductions doubtless will force the less efficient plants in some industries touched to increase their efficiency or go out of business. Time, in any normal period, is needed for adjustment, but an adjustment of a most abnormal kind is in progress during the war. Imports from Europe have fallen greatly, while exports are enormously increased. Old industrial establishments have been converted to different and temporary uses. The conclusion of the war must bring a new readjustment that must cause a severe shock to some enterprises–and this must have been so under any possible variety of tariff.[12]
Sec. 14. #Some lessons from our tariff history.# Can we draw from the checkered course of tariff history in America clear lessons of wisdom for the future? At least certain negative conclusions may be safely drawn. It is a history of a vacillating public opinion toward the policy of protective duties. Always the policy has kept some hold on public sentiment, but it has varied in strength, now waxing, now waning. The time of revisions has been determined nearly always by varying needs of revenue. When more income has had to be raised, this has nearly always been made the occasion and pretext for increasing the degree of protection for many industries. This is not at all a necessary connection, for it would be possible to couple internal revenue taxes and customs duties in such a way that the rates would go up and down together and give the varying amounts of revenue required for the government without appreciably altering the relative profitableness of various private enterprises.
Our tariff history is too largely a record of special favors granted to classes of citizens, to the citizens of certain localities, and to particular enterprises. This is apparent even in a general survey, but almost every more detailed examination of particular protective rates reveals evidence of suspicious and sometimes scandalous personal influences at work. The protective policy has always professedly been advocated for the general welfare to raise wages or to make the country prosperous, but the initiative has always been taken, and the valiant work in contributing funds for campaign purposes and in lobbying bills through Congress has been done, by the interested manufacturers. Even if it were beyond question sound in principle to exclude goods that can be bought more cheaply by trade, it is very doubtful whether any net good could have resulted from this policy as it has been in fact applied and followed. The frequent and unpredictable changes have been a great evil, and have again and again brought unmerited losses to the many in business and still greater and unearned gains to a favored few. It is incredible that such a hit-or-miss, in large part selfishly determined, policy could have been an important cause of our national prosperity. The fundamental causes of the general high wages and popular welfare that we have enjoyed is to be found rather in our rich natural resources, our capacity for self-government with free institutions, and the industrial energies of our people.[13]
The revision of the tariff of 1913, viewed with non-partizan eyes, appears to have been carried out, to say the least, as consistently with regard to its professed doctrine, and as little influenced by the malevolent arts of the old-time Congressional lobby, as any debated tariff act in our history. It still contains on the whole a large measure of protection. Under various pretexts such as the danger of a flood of cheap goods after the close of the great war, attempts will be made to make it still more prohibitive. But one lesson of our tariff history is that such an act should be given a period of fair trial before extensive changes are made in it. Even further reductions should be cautiously undertaken and put into effect gradually. If the attempt is made through temporary rates to reduce the shock of the trade adjustments, of the “dumping” after the war, then the devising and administration of such measures should be delegated to an expert, disinterested, permanent tariff board. The task is to prevent temporary “unfair competition” and sudden changes, rather than to raise permanent barriers to fair trade.[14]
[Footnote 1: It is evident that it is only through _ad valorem_ rates that it is possible to compare the average rate of duty for one tariff act, with that for another. As, however, every tariff act is made up of both specific and _ad valorem_ duties, it is only at the end of the year that an average _ad valorem_ rate can be estimated by comparing the total of duties collected with the total estimated value of the goods imported. Average _ad valorem_ rates are estimated in this way both on the dutiable goods alone, and on all goods, free and dutiable combined. There may be an element of error, even of misrepresentation, in such estimates. They do not give the simple test of the relative height of duties, or of the degree of “protection” that we might at first suppose. Just to the extent that a new and higher rate really operates to exclude imports (and thus is protective in its effect) the goods subject to that rate cease to form part of the total imports. For example, if the average rate of duty were 25 per cent, and a 50 per cent rate on an article were increased to 75 per cent, it is possible that this rate would prove to be absolutely prohibitive. This raise of rate, therefore, would tend to reduce the average rates collected on all dutiable articles. Changes in general conditions of industry from causes quite apart from the tariff may result in shifting the proportions of imports that are dutiable so that the average rates go either up or down while the tariff law has remained unchanged on the statute book. A failure to consider these and related facts leads to much confusion in popular and political discussion of the tariff.]
[Footnote 2: Usually given as 20 per cent. However a good many rates under the full operation of the act worked out as 21-1/2 or 23 per cent, and a few at 26 and at 29 per cent. Besides there were numerous specific rates, the _ad valorem_ force of which cannot be determined.]
[Footnote 3: The political argument that the small tariff reduction of 1857 caused the crisis of 1857 will not bear serious examination. See below, sec. 13.]
[Footnote 4: See ch. 14, sec. 2.]
[Footnote 5: See above, sec. 2, note 1.]
[Footnote 6: Internal revenue receipts in 1866 had been $309,000,000; in 1872 they had fallen to $131,000,000, yet the government’s surplus for the three years 1870-1872 was little less than $100,000,000 a year. This was almost half of the total receipts from customs, which were $216,000,000.]
[Footnote 7: Other issues absorbed public attention in this period–the Spanish war, colonial policy, “imperialism,” railway rate regulation, corporation control, etc.]
[Footnote 8: See above, sec. 2.]
[Footnote 9: Compare with ch. 13, sec. 5.]
[Footnote 10: Probably resulting from the rising prices, as explained above, sec. 2. For example, in one year, from 1899 to 1900, the average _ad valorem_ rate collected on dutiable goods fell 3 per cent, and that on all goods fell 2 per cent; in the two years from 1904 to 1906 the average rates on dutiable fell 4 per cent, and on all goods fell 2 per cent.]
[Footnote 11: This “competitive principle” is essentially the same as the so-called “true principle” of equalizing the cost of production (see above, sec. 11). It is essentially a prohibitive, not a free trade, principle. Strictly applied it would cause complete exclusion of imports. But as applied to selected articles which it is desired to exclude in order to “protect” the domestic producer, this principle would simply prevent the rate being placed appreciably higher than was needed to exclude them. Anything beyond that point but offers temptation and opportunity for the formation of a monopoly by domestic producers. Then, too, the rate may intentionally be fixed so as to make just possible the survival of the most favorably located or most efficiently operated establishments, while compelling the abandonment of other establishments. See ch. 14, sec. 3.]
[Footnote 12: Such changes are logically related to the subject of financial crises rather than to that of the tariff. See note at end of the next section.]
[Footnote 13: See Vol. I, e.g., pp. 228, 431, 445ff, 466, 490, 506ff.]
[Footnote 14: #Tariff legislation and business depressions.# The relation between new tariff legislation and the business conditions following it has been the subject of much debate in political campaigns. In the few cases where a relationship has been most often asserted to exist, it is more probable that the tariff change was the _result_ of business conditions preceding it, than that it was the cause of the conditions following it. For usually a tariff has been revised downward because a few years of prosperity with large imports had so increased customs duties that the government has had surplus revenues. Just when the tariff was reduced, the conditions were ripe for a crisis. This happened in 1857 (already in 1856 there had been a preliminary halt of business), again in 1872, and on a small scale in 1883. But the main reduction resulting from the compromise act of 1833 did not occur until after the crisis of 1837-39; the Walker act of 1846 was passed just as business was starting upward on a long wave of prosperity; and the act of 1894 was passed a full year after the severe crisis of 1893, when business had already entered upon a period of depression. In none of these cases does it seem reasonable to attribute business depression to the reduction of the tariff, as is commonly done in protectionist arguments even to the point of attributing the panic of 1893 to the reduction of the tariff a year later!
At several times the tariff has been raised soon after a crisis when a good occasion was presented by the need of larger revenues as in 1842, 1860, 1875, and 1897. Business at such times is just at the point of the cycle when prosperity is due. The higher tariff of 1842 was succeeded by the low tariff of 1846 without any check to business. The war obscured the ordinary industrial effects of the tariff acts of the sixties. The increase in the year 1875 was followed by four years of hard times and slow recovery. The increase of the tariff in 1890 occurred as business was nearing the top of the cycle and was followed by two years of prosperity culminating in the very severe crisis of 1893. The authors of the tariff of 1897 were peculiarly fortunate in the time of their action, for the country was just fairly recovering from the very severe crisis of 1893 and prosperity was to continue (with brief hesitation in 1900 and 1903) until the severe crisis and panic of 1907.
The advocates of higher rates are, of course, correct in declaring that the great business prosperity of the years 1915 and 1916 resulted from the unexpected demands in foreign trade growing out of the war, and is not to be credited in large measure to the act of 1913. But reason requires that the same restraint be exercised in crediting to higher protective acts the prosperity which has in some–not all–cases, followed their enactment; and requires further that the present act be not held accountable for the next reaction in trade, whenever it may occur, inasmuch as a reaction would be sure to occur no matter what kind of tariff act we might chance to have at the time.]
CHAPTER 16
OBJECTS AND PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION
Sec. 1. Public finance as a division of economics. Sec. 2. The police function. Sec. 3. Social and industrial functions. Sec. 4. The enlarging sphere of the state. Sec. 5. Industrial revenues of governments. Sec. 6. Governmental receipts from loans. Sec. 7. Nonrevenue character of receipts from loans. Sec. 8. Revenues from taxation. Sec. 9. Forms of taxation. Sec.10. Defective tax “systems.” Sec.11. Various standards of justice suggested. Sec. 12. Social welfare as the aim. Sec. 13. Principles of administration. Sec. 14. Shifting and incidence. Sec. 15. Taxes as costs.
Sec. 1. #Public finance as a division of economics.# Men live together in politically organized societies which employ public officials as agents to carry on the functions of government. Every governmental unit, large or small, may be viewed not only as a political body, but as an economic enterprise. Each has its economic aspects, such as receipts and expenditures, employer and employee, borrowing and lending, etc. Each political unit is in this sense “an economy.” The study of the public economy, of the economic aspects of government as distinguished from its political aspects, constitutes the science of public finance, an important division, tho not the whole, of political economy.
The primary fact determining the public finances is the extent of the sphere of “the state,” meaning by the state the totality of political powers and functions in a community. There are two typical ideals of a state, each with corresponding functions: the ideal of the police state, and that of the social-industrial state. In fact every system of government provides for the exercise of both functions in some measure. The police function is primary. All governments alike exercise it, but they differ most in respect to the degree in which they exercise the social-industrial functions.
Sec. 2. #The police function.# The police function is that of public defense and the maintenance of domestic order. In family or patriarchal communities all share a common income and combine in the common defense, but self-preservation often has compelled such small communities to form a larger, stronger state for the common defense. Public defense requires sacrifice of some independence on the part of the family and of the individual. Personal service in the field gives place later in some measure to the payment of taxes, so that a regular income may permit the government to attain a more regular, continuing, and perfect organization of military forces.
As political unity and power grow, the citizens need less often protection against foreign foes, and they need more often, relatively, defense against the aggressions of some of their own countrymen. The preservation of domestic order requires police, courts of justice, and other agencies. The ideal of the anarchist to do without government is nowhere realized. Everywhere there must be government to preserve peace and to protect property. Unfortunately, this need grows with the growing density of population. Crime increases when men swarm in great cities. The courts which settle disputes between men, and which interpret their contracts, are agencies of peace, displacing physical contests. To maintain and operate the various parts of the social machinery requires ever increasing governmental revenues. From many causes government has, in modern times, grown increasingly costly.
Sec. 3. #Social and industrial functions.# The social and industrial functions of government seem naturally to grow out of the primary ones just mentioned. In a democratic society, popular education is a necessity, as it appears that domestic order is not possible in a democratic state without intelligent citizens. The system of public education has, in many states, expanded to include a publicly supported university as the dominant educational and scientific organ of the community. Some industrial functions are performed by the government in connection with the primary needs. Lighthouses are necessary to guide the navy, but they also serve to guide the merchant marine and to aid industry. The post was established as an agent of political and military government to connect the ruler with the outposts (a fact the name post indicates), but the postal service has grown in every country to be a great industrial and social agency. The consular service, originating in the political need of keeping official representatives in foreign lands, has become a valuable economic agency; consuls are commercial agents, advancing the business interests of their countries in all quarters of the globe.
Sec. 4. #The enlarging sphere of the state.# A mere police state would leave to private initiative the provision of every kind of economic agencies not needed for political government. The state might, for example, even leave the provision of roads and bridges to private individuals or to companies, permitting them to charge tolls to obtain a return on their investment. Whenever a toll-road is made public and a toll-bridge becomes free, and the state maintains the roads, it is becoming less strictly a mere police state. Reacting from the ideal of the police state which was most highly praised in the first half of the nineteenth century, the functions of government have been extending in many directions in the last half century. More and more economic functions are performed through the agency of government. If we think of an act as done by the government _for_ private citizens, we call it paternalism; but if we think of an act as done _by_ citizens collectively _for_ themselves as the best way to get these things done, we may call it, in a broad sense, socialism.[1]
Government is in one aspect a direct good to its citizens. In return for its collective cost men collectively get the enjoyment of social organization, markedly in contrast with the uncertain ties and hazards of primitive communities. But government becomes also a mode of social investment, an indirect agent, a productive enterprise. Wealth applied through it secures in some cases a greater product than is possible by individual action.
But when the government undertakes these various tasks the expense falls unequally on individuals and affects differently their incomes. When free schools take the place of private schools, the law compels every one to contribute to education. To many individuals it is a matter of indifference whether they pay tuition or taxes, but the wealthy bachelor sometimes grumbles when forced to help in educating the day-laborer’s family. The average result of a certain social policy may be right, but individuals diverge from the average and thus have constantly a motive to attempt to change the limits of governmental action. Happily the subject is not always viewed with selfish eyes. The ethical and patriotic thought is not, “How will this affect my interests?” but. “How will it affect the general interests?” But as the question of value is always involved men are usually found favoring or opposing the industrial and social activity of the state according as it affects their own incomes. Thus the determination of the sphere of the state is in large part an economic question.
Sec. 5. #Industrial revenues of governments#. The costs of government at any stage are met in varying degrees in one of three ways: (1) from industrial sources, (2) by borrowing and thus creating a public debt, (3) from taxation.
(1) Receipts from industrial sources in the broad sense include all rents from wealth owned, interest on loans made, and proceeds of sales from enterprises conducted, by the government. In feudal times, these were mostly obtained in the form of rents from the private domains of kings and nobles. In many early and medieval states these sources of receipts were adequate to the need of government; then they decreased in many countries, both relatively and absolutely, because of the sale of publicly owned wealth (lands and mines) and with the recent extension of the functions of government have again increased very rapidly. Now industrial revenues come not only from the rents of forests, mines, docks, lands, and buildings, but from profits in the operation of industrial enterprises such as waterworks, railways, mines, and factories, and from interest on funds deposited in banks or otherwise invested. At present the industrial revenues of the aggregate governments of the United States (national, state, and municipal) amount to about a fifth of all revenue receipts. Since the middle of the nineteenth century the number and variety of the industrial enterprises undertaken by governments has been steadily increasing, and this increase has been most marked in the cities. The change in this respect in the United States, great as it has been, has been proceeding more slowly than in the European countries.
In 1913 the receipts of this nature (earnings of departments and of public service enterprises) were nearly $500,000,000. The larger part of this sum comes to the national government ($288,000,000), mostly from the post-office department. Most of the remainder comes to the minor divisions ($176,000,000), and but little to the states. The total “earnings” (this means here receipts, not profits) of public service enterprises in incorporated places were $120,000,000.
Sec. 6. #Governmental receipts from loans.# The funds to invest in these commercial undertakings are originally obtained in nearly all cases from public loans. Almost every unit or division of government may become a borrower to provide for its citizens at once certain needed advantages and improvements when the funds are not at hand and immediate taxation is deemed too heavy a burden.[2]
The indebtedness (less funds available for payment of debt) of the aggregate governments of the United States in 1913 was:
Nation …………………………… $1,028,000,000 States …………………………… 346,000,000 Minor divisions ……………………. 3,476,000,000 ————-
Total ……………………………. $4,850,000,000
The larger part of nearly every national debt has been incurred for purposes of war and preparation for war, while nearly all public debt other than national has been created for the purpose of peaceful social and industrial development. The debts of the American states have partly been made necessary to meet deficits in current expenses, but largely of late to erect public buildings, purchase forest lands, improve roads, and construct canals. The minor divisions are counties, cities, villages, boroughs, towns, townships, school districts, drainage, irrigation, and levee districts, fire districts, poor-relief districts, road districts, and various other subdivisions of states and of counties. Every one of them has more or less legal power to incur debts and to levy taxes for the purpose of paying the interest and of repaying the principal. The purposes for which the debts are incurred by specially organized districts are sometimes indicated in the names (e.g., drainage, irrigation), while the regular political divisions of counties, cities, villages, towns, townships, incur debts for a large variety of objects, such as streets, sewage disposal, water supply, electric light or gas plants, school houses, libraries, and other public buildings. Large expenditures for these purposes are necessary because the local governments are undertaking new functions, and either existing equipment (such as waterworks systems, and street railways) must be bought from private companies or new ones must be built. They are necessary further because the rapid growth of population calls for an immediate “capital investment,” the payment of which may be, through borrowing, more easily spread over a series of years (e.g., in the extension of streets and paving, and in the provision of school houses for the children).
Sec. 7. #Nonrevenue character of receipts from loans.# The proceeds from loans (and certain other items of sales) are called nonrevenue receipts, because they are but in anticipation of receipts from other sources. The economic theory of such loans is essentially the same as that of private loans, but it is the people of the political district collectively that are the borrowers. To get the present uses of goods they sell their promise to make future payments totaling a larger amount. The loan is the present worth of those promises. In the case of loans made for local purposes, provision is now usually made for their complete repayment within a definite number of years, usually 10, or 20, or 30. Meantime interest is payable annually or semi-annually, and from some source an additional sum is collected to repay a part of the loan, sometimes by redeeming a certain part annually, sometimes by accumulating a sinking fund until that amounts to the whole debt.
The minor divisions in the United States are thus constantly creating debts at the rate of about $2,000,000,000 each year and at the same time paying former debts in instalments, in a total amount somewhat less than this. In the case of some municipal investments which are commercial enterprises (such as those supplying gas, electricity, and water), these annual payments can be made out of the profits; in the case of others, the payments come from special assessments upon the owners; and in most other cases they are collected by the usual methods of taxation. In America, a large part of these costs are, by the law of special assessments, placed upon the owners of adjacent lands, whose outlays are usually more than offset by the increased value of their lands as a result of the improvements. In this case also, the present investment is in anticipation of the future incomes which the owners of the improved lands will get.[3]
Sec. 8. #Revenues from taxation.# Much the largest part of the receipts of most governments, apart from loans, and in many cases nearly all such revenue receipts, come from taxation. Tax (as a verb) meant originally to touch or handle, then to estimate or appraise, and then to charge a burden upon some one, especially to impose a payment of services, goods, or money upon persons or property for the support of government.[4] _Taxation_ is the legal process of taking income, services, or wealth from private persons for public uses.
Taxes are of various kinds, but they always are incomes, or wealth representing future incomes, transferred from private ownership of the taxpayers to the government. In rare cases, more than the net current income of a certain kind may be taken for public uses. As economic income has many sources, it may be intercepted at many different points, and taxation may take various forms. The differences are so manifold that it is difficult to classify particular taxes satisfactorily.
Sec. 9. #Forms of taxation.# The following are the forms of taxation most frequently referred to.
(a) The simplest form of tax is a _poll tax_, a uniform amount payable by every person of the taxable class. This form of tax is being less and less used in America and now amounts to little more than $17,000,000,[5] this being only .6 of 1 per cent of the aggregate taxes in the United States. The national government gets about one-fourth of this amount from a tax on immigrants and the rest is collected by (some of) the states, counties, and minor divisions. Usually, if not always, the poll tax is imposed only upon voters, as a condition to the right to vote.
(b) Taxes may be laid upon _incomes_, as they come into the possession of the owner. Usually, only monetary incomes that arise in commercial transactions are taxable, and no attempt is made to estimate the value of psychic incomes. Commercial incomes are more easily measured, but the omission of the other elements must cause many inequalities in the burden of the tax as between two individuals controlling equal incomes of real things.
(c) Taxes may be on _property_, either general upon all property in the taxing district, or special, upon certain forms of property. A property tax may be specific or _ad valorem_, in proportion to value, as to the method of its determination. Since the value of material wealth is the capitalization of the rentals at the prevailing rate of interest, a general, _ad valorem_, property tax, so far as it applies to material wealth, and if it were accurately assessed, would take an approximately equal proportion of wealth-incomes. It does not, of course, touch directly incomes derived from wages and salaries, but it reduces their purchasing power in many cases. It is in some respects more searching than a tax on actual rents, for it reaches the prospective, or speculative, rental.
(d) Taxes may be on _expenditure_ (sometimes called taxes on consumption). This is but another mode of attacking income, for in the long run most income is spent, not always by the individual who earned it, but by some one, and thus it is reached by a tax on expenditure. Usually in the United States the tariff duties are accounted to be taxes on expenditure, as also the internal revenues (also called excises) of the national government. In time of war, internal revenues are extended in the United States to a multitude of articles, but usually they have been limited (with minor exceptions) to liquor and tobacco. Most of these taxes are in fact levied not at the time of purchase by the ultimate consumer, but upon the specific goods in the hands of some merchant or business agency, and some of them are essentially special property taxes and others are business taxes of the kind next to be mentioned.
(e) Taxes may be levied on selected agencies of industry or on the process of _business_; such are business taxes, licenses, taxes on investment in business, and corporation taxes. These burdens are diffused and rest eventually on some income, rarely to be ascertained exactly.
Sec. 10. #Defective tax “systems.”# The actual tax laws of each division of government in a country combine the various forms in different proportions. Most of the federal taxes are from tariff duties and from internal revenues; the latter include a variety of special business and property taxes and, since 1913, the federal income tax. The largest receipts of states, of counties, and of minor divisions are from property taxes, some special but most of them general in form. Among the various states a wide diversity is found. Some use the general property tax for all the divisions (state and local), while others (several of the Northern states and California) have separated the sources of state and local taxation, taxing corporations for state purposes, and most other forms of wealth for local purposes. Some states, particularly those of the South, make large use of licenses and taxes on business both for state and local purposes. The tax laws of many states have been much modified of late and are still in process of change. It is only in a loose sense that one can speak of the tax “system” of any state, made up as it is of so many diverse elements, each used to tap in some independent way some source of private income for public purposes. Every tax “system” has grown up more or less accidentally, guided by no more of a general principle than the advice of the cynical old statesman–so to pluck the feathers of the goose that it will squawk as little as possible. Thus, everywhere, the existing situation must be largely accounted for by custom and ignorance, by the weakness of some classes and the undue influence of other classes, rather than by clearly thought out principles soundly administered.
Sec. 11. #Various standards of justice suggested.# There have not been lacking earnest attempts to arrive at some general principles. Many standards have been suggested to measure the distribution of the burden of taxation, such as benefit, equality, and ability. Each of these terms is capable of various interpretations which have changed from time to time. The benefit derived by any citizen from most of the public services evidently cannot be measured with exactness. The standard of equality cannot be applied in any literal sense to strong and weak, to rich and poor. It is possible, however, to interpret equality with reference not to objective goods, but to the psychic sacrifice occasioned by taxation. Ability is of many kinds and may be differently understood. Some think ability to bear taxation is “in exact proportion to the money income”; others believe that it increases at a greater rate than money income, and favor, therefore, progressive taxation, that is, higher rates on the larger incomes.
Sec. 12. #Social welfare as the aim.# The conflicting interests of the various classes of taxpayers in each period are to some degree softened by the prevailing public opinion, sometimes called the social conscience, and taxes are adjusted according to a vaguely held ideal of the social welfare. Social expediency, more or less broadly interpreted, determines who shall be taxed and what social results are to be sought. The exemptions from taxation in feudal times were great and, viewed from our standpoint, were inequitable, for the upper classes escaped while the peasants bore most of the burdens. The landlords and nobility, who were assumed to be performing important social functions, generally had outgrown their usefulness in the period preceding the French Revolution, which swept away many of these abuses.
Exemptions from taxation are granted liberally in most states to-day on some kinds of wealth and to some classes of citizens, because of their supposed relations to the public interest. Real estate and equipment devoted to educational, religious, and charitable purposes, the homes of priests and ministers, homesteads purchased with pension money, as well as all public lands, buildings, and equipment are exempt.
The social interest requires that taxes be both elastic and productive, so that the needs of the government shall be amply provided for. The harmonizing of these needs in the laws of taxation requires a high degree of wisdom, of foresight, and of integrity in the legislator and in the citizen. No hard-and-fast rule for the apportioning of taxes can be laid down. The decision must be made in each generation by the public opinion as to what is most expedient for the general welfare.
Sec. 13. #Principles of administration.# Whatever forms of taxes are adopted, whether on property or income, whether at proportional or at progressive rates, their justice and expediency depend largely on their administration. Principle and practice in this, as in most affairs, may go far apart. The administration of taxation should be economical, certain, and uniform. Some laws are more easily and economically executed than others. The time of collection should be as convenient as possible for the citizen, and the mode of payment should be the most simple. The utmost certainty is desirable as to the time, method of payment, and amount. Taxation that, in its principle, is variable, shifting, or dependent on personal whim and favoritism, is despotism. But the greatest evils, in practice, result from the failures in assessment. The assessment of taxes has to be intrusted to men with fallible judgment, imperfect knowledge, and selfish interests. The assessor is as near a despot as any agent of popular government to-day. Not infrequently men of proved incapacity in every private business they have attempted are, for partizan or corrupt reasons, selected as assessors, and are given the power of passing judgment on the value of millions of dollars’ worth of property. Under the circumstances, evils are to be expected, and they occur. The small owner often is crushed under the unequal assessment while the large owner comes lightly off. Political friends are favored, political foes are made to suffer. Even the most honest and capable of assessors find in the imperfections of the tax laws[6] an insuperable obstacle to even-handed justice.
Sec. 14. #Shifting and incidence.# The person paying a tax into the public treasury is not always the one whose income is reduced in the long run. This is most clearly seen in the case of taxes paid by middlemen. In most cases the final and regular burden of the tax is distributed over a number of incomes. The passing on of the burden is called the _shifting_ of the tax; the final location of the burden is called the _incidence_ of the tax. The lawmaker cannot tell exactly where the weight will fall. The principles of value give some guidance in the inquiry, but the workings of the principle are difficult to follow.
Consider a situation where certain taxes have been for some time levied. They have become a part of the general adjustment of prices. If paid by any one in business they may be looked upon as a deduction from the gross proceeds or product of the business, prior to cost, or as a part of cost.[7] In either case every one choosing that business does so in the light of this fact. Unless the business promises to yield as good incomes (wages, profits) as other lines, the number engaging in it, and the output, must diminish and thus the price of the product rise, or the cost of the factors fall, or both in some proportion. The tax on any durative agent or on any established business thus becomes incorporated after a time in its price and in the prices of the products, and any purchaser pays a price based on the net income remaining to the owner of the wealth after the tax is paid. Viewed in this way, taxes are seen to be borne to some extent by every one, by those who do not as well as by those who do actually meet the tax-collector face to face. The citizen with no taxable property is affected, far more than he realizes, by extravagance of government and by inequities in taxation, for the effects of most taxes are diffused so that every self-sustaining member of the community has some share in them.
Sec. 15. #Taxes as costs.# Now if a new tax is levied, or an old tax changed in amount or in its incidence, it becomes a new influence in industry. Some occupations are made more attractive, others less so. Some places are made more, others less, desirable to live in. Property thus fluctuates in value, and investments become more or less remunerative. If the new tax reduces the net income of any productive agent, it reduces likewise its value, which is but the capitalization of its net rental. If taxes are taken off of factories and put upon farm rents, factories rise and farms fall in value in the hands of their owners. The immediate change in value is much greater than the annual tax, for if five dollars is to be taken permanently from the annual rental of the farm, nearly one hundred dollars is taken at once from its selling value when the prevailing yield on investment is 5 per cent. The rate of adjustment varies greatly under different conditions, and the inflow and the outflow of labor and capital are more or less rapid in the various industries.
Taxes that enterprisers are unable to shift to others are reckoned by them as a part of their costs of production whenever the conditions of competition and of substitution make it possible to do so. Every new tax that curtails the supply of any necessary agent must raise the price of the products and cause more or less of the tax to fall upon the consumers. In the Civil War an increase in the tax on whisky increased its selling price, and distillers who owned stocks on which a smaller tax had already been paid reaped profits of millions of dollars. When the tax on tea was increased in England, all dealers that had accumulated a stock before the law went into effect were gainers. Every change in taxation inevitably affects, either favorably or unfavorably, many interests. The chance to anticipate a change in tax laws or to get, from those in power, information of a proposed change, makes speculation possible and political corruption profitable.
The fact that a change in taxation is a disturbing element in price is not to be deemed insignificant merely because “all comes out right in the end.” Every change in taxation is an element of uncertainty in business and increases the fortunes of some men at the expense of others. Hence no considerable change should be made without good reasons in its favor. The older taxes have the virtue of stability, but in many cases they have grown out of harmony with the industrial conditions. While, therefore, from time to time there is a real need of a reform in the tax system, it should not be undertaken without recognizing the many and complex interests involved.
[Footnote 1: Meaning here not a certain political party, but a principle of social action.]
[Footnote 2: The total debts of the _national_ governments of the world just before the outbreak of the great war in 1914 were estimated at about $44,000,000,000. (These figures include the debts of the separate states in the federal unions of Australia and the German Empire, and the separate debts of European colonial governments, but not those of the states of the United States, and in no case including the debts of minor divisions, the total figures for which are not to be had.) The new debts created by the war give already more than double the foregoing total.]
[Footnote 3: The special assessment is thus in its nature, in part a private investment. The plan, of special assessments could easily be applied in many more cases than is done at present.]
[Footnote 4: There are border-line cases where it is difficult to decide whether a particular payment to the government in the form of a fee, price for service (as water rates, etc.), and special assessment (as for street paving) is in the legal sense a tax or not. Some courts have, for example, decided that for certain purposes a special assessment is to be called a tax, and in certain other cases it is not to be if this would defeat the evident and just intention of the legislature.]
[Footnote 5: The figures do not include returns from incorporated places having a population of less than 2500 where the poll taxes may be a considerable sum.]
[Footnote 6: Particularly the difficulties noted in the next chapter, sees. 2-5.]
[Footnote 7: See Vol. I, p. 374.]
CHAPTER 17
PROPERTY AND CORPORATION TAXES
Sec. 1. Importance of taxation as a public question. Sec. 2. The general property tax; nature and difficulty. Sec. 3. Ambiguity of the term “property.” Sec. 4. Various temporizing policies. Sec. 5. A consistent policy of wealth-taxation. Sec. 6. Needed reform of assessment. Sec. 7. Separation of state and local taxation. Sec. 8. Federal taxation of merchandise in commerce. Sec. 9. The proposal of the single tax on land values. Sec. 10. Various reforms in land taxation. Sec. 11. Difficulties in taxing corporations. Sec. 12. Special taxes on banks. Sec. 13. Special taxes on insurance. Sec. 14. Special taxes on transportation. Sec. 15. Alternative policies of corporate taxation. Sec. 16. General plan for corporate taxation.
Sec. 1. #Importance of taxation as a public question.# The discussion of taxation has accompanied the growth of free government in England and America from the time of Magna Charta. The control of the public purse has been found to give the key to political power, and therefore it has frequently become the occasion of conflict between the monarch and the people. But in our own national history since the adoption of the Constitution, taxation has not had a leading place in politics except in the one aspect of the tariff. The constitutional question of states’ rights long absorbed most of the interest of citizens and of legislators. But with the quickened attention of the public to economic questions, the problem of taxation became of increasing importance.
It has come to be recognized that taxation can be made to play, and is bound to play, a leading part as an agency in the distribution of wealth, and thus it is the center of much of the ardent controversy regarding social reform. Ultimately, almost every proposal of social change and betterment involves some cost. The question then must be answered. Who is to receive the benefits and upon whom and how shall new taxes be levied to pay the cost? Further, it is often urged that this result of taxation in redistributing incomes is in itself (or can be made) a virtue; and some even see in tax reform the answer to the largest social questions of our time. We are now to take up a few of the more important problems of taxation, to see the difficulties, and to suggest the direction in which their solution is to be sought. The tariff having been already separately considered, the chief kinds of taxes we have here to treat are property taxes, general and special, and inheritance and income taxes.
Sec. 2. #The general property tax; nature and difficulty.# The rates both of assessment and of levy of the general property tax are uniform and equal in proportion to the value of all (or nearly all) property in the taxing district.[1] There are always some exceptions of certain kinds of property, or of the property of certain persons, or of property and things put to certain uses–public, educational, religious, and charitable in their nature.
The federal government levies no general property tax, but the other branches of government[2] receive about three-fifths of all their revenues from it.
At first view nothing would seem to be simpler and juster in principle than such a plan of taxation, but those who have most carefully studied its practical operation, almost with one accord, pronounce it to be “a dismal failure.” The chief reason assigned for this failure has been that the assessment of the tax is imperfect and incomplete. The usual thought is that if all property could be assessed the plan would be excellent. Undoubtedly the difficulty of just assessment has its part in the weakness of the tax, but back of, and more important than this, is an inherent fallacy in the apparently simple principle of the tax.
Sec. 3. #Ambiguity of the term “property.”# Unfortunately, the word property is applied, even by the most competent courts, both to the intangible right of ownership (the fundamental meaning) and to the concrete thing that is owned, the source of the income.[3] But evidently the value of the right to the income yielded by a house, for example, is merely the value of the house. The value of the _property in the one sense_ (the abstract ownership, the intangible right) is merely a reflection of the value of the _property in the other sense_ (the concrete wealth). There are not here two independent bodies of economic wealth. Whatever value belongs to the one is subtracted from the other. Nor is it rational to take the paper document called a deed (which is but the evidence of ownership) and call it tangible property having a value in addition to the house itself. Yet, in fact, all these confusions are constantly made in taxation. The term “intangible personal property” is applied to such things as mercantile credits, promissory notes, bonds–in general to the right to collect sums from another person, whether these rights arise out of sales or of loans–and all are treated as parts of taxable property. Sometimes the evidences of indebtedness, the promissory notes or the mortgage papers, are even called tangible property, the same term that is applied to land, houses, and machinery. By universal practice supported by a long line of court decisions, these rights (whether evidenced by paper or not) are made subject to taxation, except as by piecemeal legislation certain grudging exceptions have been made. These views and this practice are supported by the popular desire to tax money-lenders. The result is “double taxation” of many sources of income. This involves a burden that is ruinous in some cases, both to borrowers and to lenders, and that tempts in all cases to the evasion of the tax.
Take, for example, a house assessed at $10,000 which is owned free of debt and which has a rental value of $600. At the rate of 1.5 per cent the tax paid would be $150. Now if the owner borrows $8000 he is still taxable $150 on the full value of the house, and the lender nearly everywhere is taxable $120 on the amount of his mortgage. The total tax payable out of the one source of income, the house, is then $270. The same analysis will show that any credit is but a contractual claim upon some other source of income which is, or should have been, already taxed.
If one person owns all the capital-value invested in a specific piece of wealth, no attempt is made to tax both the capital and the wealth; but if it happens that two or more persons share the capital-value invested in the same wealth, the attempt is made to tax as a unit the full value of the wealth and, in addition, some part of the capital also. It is, however, easy in most cases to conceal this “intangible property” from the assessor’s eyes, and a comparatively small amount of it is ever taxed. This means inequality and hardship in the operation of the tax and, as a result, unceasing temptation to perjury by the taxpayer and to favoritism and graft by public officials.
Sec. 4. #Various temporizing policies.# The general property tax in practice is unjust and demoralizing. What, then, shall be done about it? Various policies have been followed. One has been to declare that the law would be good if it could be enforced, but that as in practice it cannot be, the best thing is to go on as before, catching a few “tax dodgers,” and letting the rest go. Another policy is to hire “tax ferrets,” paying them large commissions to discover cases where intangible property of this sort has been concealed from the assessors. This method, no matter how stringently applied, has never reached more than a small proportion of the cases, and becomes a potent agency of political favoritism and corruption.
Another policy is to maintain the general principle, but to make exceptions here and there. Usually the exceptions are made just at those points where the law would with earnest effort be most easily enforceable, and therefore where it has become most inconvenient. As a result of these changes the state laws display a bewildering and illogical variety. By constitutional interpretation, United States notes and federal bonds are exempt from state and local taxation; generally, by state law, building and loan association and savings-bank loans are exempt as, in a majority of states, are state and municipal bonds if held within the state. In at least eight states, bonds of the state are exempt, but those of the municipalities are taxable, while in a few states the reverse is the case. In several states both kinds of bonds when issued after specified dates, are exempt, but in Ohio state bonds are exempt only if issued prior to 1913. All but seven of the forty-eight states, however, attempt to tax the resident holders of state and municipal bonds of other states; but the exceptional states are those in which most of the investors in this class of securities reside. In many cases private debts receivable are allowed to be offset against debts payable. In some states mortgages on real estate are exempted or (in Massachusetts) treated as an interest in the real estate. Rarely mortgages are exempted up to a certain amount (in Indiana, to $700, the purpose being to tempt the borrower to reveal the name of the lender). Sometimes a special mortgage registration tax, payable but once (in New York 1/2 of 1 per cent) is levied, and otherwise mortgages are free from taxation. Small as this rate is, the fiscal yield of mortgage taxation under this plan exceeds that under the general property tax.
By the overlapping of these laws, so contradictory in principle, it may happen that securities held by taxpayers residing in other states than those of the issue are taxable two or three or more times; but few if any loans of this kind are made except by those evading all taxation.
Sec. 5. #A consistent policy of wealth taxation.# These exceptions still leave the law in its general principles as to the taxation of intangible property illogical and unjust. A solution can be found only by abandoning the ambiguous legal concept of property, and making use of economic concepts. A consistent tax law might take either wealth or capital as the basis of assessment, but not sometimes the one and sometimes the other. Wealth is an impersonal basis of taxation; each piece of wealth might be taxed once as a unit no matter how the ownership were divided. Or the other alternative might be chosen. Capital would be a personal basis of taxation; each person’s capital might be taxed no matter from what sources the incomes were derived (the concrete wealth, of course, then being left untaxed).
The wealth basis is much nearer to the present general property tax as actually administered. The assessment of general tangible wealth would undoubtedly be more easily done than would that of individual capitals, and likewise be both easier and juster than the present inconsistent policy. Tangible things are comparatively easy to find, measure, and evaluate where they are, and if they are all taxed it is evidently the same as if all the capital values based upon them were taxed in the owners’ hands. The various equitable claims of different owners in one source of income could be left to adjust themselves through shifting, mainly in the choice of investments, once the plan had become generally applied.
Sec. 6. #Needed reform of assessment.# The assessment of the present general property tax is notoriously inefficient and unjust. The root of most of the present evils (other than those above discussed) is the method of local election of assessors, which usually is by townships, but in some cases by counties. The local assessor’s estimate of value is used as a basis for taxation not only for his district but for the larger units (county and state). Thus every local assessor is tempted by the conflict of interests not only among the taxpayers in the district which elects him, but by the conflict of interests between his district as a whole and other districts. The lower the ratio of assessment to true valuation in any township compared with that of the other tax districts, the smaller the proportion of county and state taxes that the people of the district have to pay. Willingness to under-assess property often becomes thus the chief virtue of an assessor in the eyes of his political constituents. This has led in many cases to absurd underassessment, which boards of equalization have proved powerless to remedy in any great measure. A sounder plan would be general state assessment, with a permanent expert board of commissioners employing a corps of state assessors under the merit system of appointment. This plan has as yet been applied only to assessment of railroads and some other public-service corporations.
Sec. 7. #Separation of state and local taxation.# For the reason just indicated the failure of the general property tax has been most conspicuous where it is used as a basis for state taxation. This has led some financial students to advocate the plan of separation of state and local taxation. This means the assignment of certain sources of revenue (such as corporations and the liquor business) primarily or exclusively to the state, leaving all real estate and the general property of non-corporate persons to be taxed by the counties and minor divisions under the general property tax. The plan has been increasingly applied in New York, until, in 1906, it became almost complete. In 1910 the plan was adopted in California; and it is largely used in New Jersey, Connecticut, Delaware, and Pennsylvania, and to a small extent in some other states. An efficient state assessment of general wealth would accomplish most of the advantages claimed for this plan, while avoiding some of its dangers.
Sec. 8. #Federal taxation of merchandise and acts in commerce.# Tariff and internal revenue duties constitute the two chief revenues of the federal government. Both of these are mainly taxes on wealth. Unlike the general property taxes they are not levied upon the main body of wealth held in possession, but almost entirely upon articles of merchandise and upon acts in course of trade. Stamps on receipts, checks, deeds, bills of sale, and licenses on the sale of liquor and tobacco are taxes on business acts which are necessary to the acquisition, use, or expenditure of wealth. Goods imported are taxed at the time of entering the country; domestic products such as cigars, spirituous or malt liquors, playing cards, and (at times) matches, pig iron, and other products, are taxed usually at the time of exit from the factory. It has already been shown that when the tariff duty prevents the importation of foreign goods and by raising the price encourages domestic manufacture of the article, there is virtually taxation of the consumer to subsidize the private manufacturer. A system of properly adjusted compensatory duties (tariffs and internal duties combined) which would prevent tariff duties from having any prohibitive effect whatever could, in a great country like ours, be made to produce any revenues desired. Such a system, combined with the federal income tax, seems destined to be the chief dependence for the national government.
Sec. 9. #Proposal of the single tax on land values.# Besides the general property tax there are found in the country as a whole a large number of special property taxes. Some of these have been introduced as substitutes for the general property tax; such is the special taxation (above referred to) of mortgages, and bonds. Other special property taxes have been introduced because they were believed to be good in themselves; such are special franchise taxes on corporations and some kinds of taxes on land.
The special taxation of land, or of land values, has been strongly urged by Henry George and his followers since the publication of the remarkable book “Progress and Poverty” in 1879. The doctrine there set forth is that the state should “appropriate land rent by taxation,” should “tax land values, irrespective of improvements.” It is maintained that “a single tax” of this kind would be quite sufficient for all the purposes of government. The main arguments adduced for this plan may be reduced to three propositions: first, private property in land is essentially unjust, because land is made by nature, not by men; second, the plan would make assessment simple and certain by limiting it to the unimproved land, and making unnecessary the more difficult assessment both of tangible improvements and of intangible personal property; and third, it would work a marvelous reform in social conditions, abolishing poverty and greatly increasing production.
It is impossible within our limits of space to discuss this proposal further than to indicate that: (1) It assumes an untenable theory of property.[4] (2) It overlooks the difficulty of distinguishing the value of the land “irrespective of improvements,” from that of the land as it actually is, a difficulty especially great in the case of agricultural land.[5] The difficulty is present even in the case of urban land when the improvements of filling, draining, and leveling have become incorporated with the site.[6] (3) The plan ignores the stimulus (motivating force) which private ownership has given and still gives to the maintenance and fuller productive use of land. Nowhere has production thriven where the state was the universal landlord.
Sec. 10. #Various reforms in land taxation.# While the single tax plan is defective in principle, its wide discussion has served to direct attention toward the need of reform in the taxation of land. Some proposals looking toward this end are widely favored by opponents as well as by advocates of the single tax. Such are the following:
(a) The abandonment of the taxation of mortgages.[7]
(b) A more correct assessment, in accordance with the present laws, of lots and lands held for speculative purposes, which in practice are now greatly under-assessed.
(c) More adequate special franchise taxation upon corporations for special privileges in the public highways.
(d) Exemption, in value equal to the costs, of improvements on land, such as buildings, drains, fences, and fertilizers, for a limited time after they are made, perhaps five years.
(e) The separate assessment of urban lands used as mere building sites and of the buildings on them.
(f) Taxation of the increase (“increment”) of urban land values, periodically or on the occasion of transfer of ownership.
Sec. 11. #Difficulties in taxing corporations.#[8] Until near the second quarter of the nineteenth century, business corporations (of which there were few) were taxed just as was the general property of individuals. This still continues to be the case in the main in most of the states. The methods and machinery of assessment were (and still are) essentially local and simple, and have proved to be inadequate to reach or justly assess the larger and more complex corporate enterprises when their equipment and business extend beyond town, then county and, finally, state lines. Moreover, the corporate forms of organization presented in complex and puzzling forms the dual conception of property.[9] Here was the tangible wealth of the corporation and there were the diffused rights of ownership, the capital of individual stockholders and bondholders. Confused by this ambiguity, the men of that time believed (as many still believe) that there were here two separate and justly taxable funds of value. The popular will declared (and still declares) that “all kinds of property ought to bear their fair share of the burdens of taxation.” Yet to apply this principle would obviously be double taxation and result in confiscation in many cases. Between this doubt and the practical difficulty of assessment, it turned out that corporate wealth, far from being doubly taxed, was largely escaping even its due single burden.
Sec. 12. #Special taxes on banks.# Attempts to deal with the difficulty without clear perception of its cause took the form of legislative tinkering and patching. Taxes were gathered from corporations by any device that seemed workable. The banks, being the earlier important corporations, were first experimented upon. Taxes on capital stock and on circulation were tried first (in 1805, by Georgia), then a tax on dividends (in 1814, in Pennsylvania, and in 1815 in Ohio), examples which were followed or modified by a number of states. After the national banking system was started in 1864, attempts to tax both the capital of the banks and the stock in the hands of individuals led to federal court decisions and then to state legislation by which now in many of the states the banks are separately taxed on their real estate and the shares are assessed to the individual holders (by various rules), but the taxes deducted from dividends and paid by the bank. There are, besides, special franchise taxes and fees paid by banks in various states.
Sec. 13. #Special taxes on insurance companies#. Insurance companies present in a striking manner the complexities of the ambiguous property concept. The assets of the insurance companies (we refer here particularly to the reserve companies), which belong in equity to the policy holders (less the claim of the stockholders in the case of the stock companies), are nearly all invested in stocks and bonds of corporations and in mortgages on real estate. Now under the general property tax, strictly interpreted, the policies are assessable at their surrender or reserve valuation in the hands of the policy holders; secondly, the securities and credits which compose the assets are assessable to the company; and, thirdly, the railroads, factories, and houses, built with the outstanding loans made by the insurance companies, are assessable as tangible wealth, to the owners. If such an interpretation were practically enforced it would result in triple taxation to be drawn from the same economic source, and would be utterly prohibitive of the insurance business. The enforcement has, however, been impossible in practice. Insurance companies have comparatively little tangible wealth excepting real estate for offices. This is taxed locally. Several methods have been tried (beginning as early as 1824) to make insurance companies pay taxes (usually for state purposes) on something besides tangible wealth. A tax on receipts from premiums proved most workable, first as applied to “foreign corporations” (that is, to those of other states) and later, generally, to domestic companies also. Now, amid bewildering variety and interstate rivalries in tax laws, the most usual rate is two per cent on gross (in a few cases on net) premiums collected. The taxes on premiums, with various licenses and fees, now amount to 2.15 per cent of the total receipts from life insurance premiums in the United States. This is taxation not on an existing body of accumulated wealth, but upon the process of accumulation, a tax directly on the act of saving. A consistent policy of wealth taxation combined with income taxation would require the abandonment of the present forms of special insurance taxes.
Sec. 14. #Special taxes on transportation.# Another great group of businesses whose taxation has been especially complex, because they are distributed throughout different taxing districts, are agencies of transportation and communication, especially railroad, sleeping car, express, telegraph, and telephone companies. A state tax on railroad tonnage (Pennsylvania, 1860) was declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. But many other plans have been tried to compel the railroads to contribute, the chief being by taxes on dividends, gross earnings, equipment, and valuation of capital stock, taxed either to the company or to the stock-holders, (Connecticut since 1849). About a third of the states no longer make the physical plant the basis of taxation, except that in most of them some part or kinds of real estate are taxed locally.[10]
Telegraph companies are still locally assessed in most states, but in over a third of the states are taxed either on gross receipts, or on mileage of wire. Telephone companies are similarly taxed, but sometimes on the number of transmitters, or of subscribers, or on each plant, or otherwise. In a similar manner, express and sleeping car companies are taxed, in the same group of states, on mileage, or on capital stock proportional to mileage, or by license and privilege taxes.
In the case of these corporations, and also of various other miscellaneous kinds of companies, no clear-cut principles serve to guide. The result is “a chaos in practice–a complete absence of principle.”[11]
Sec. 15. #Alternative policies as to corporate taxation.# If the taxation of corporations is not to continue to be treated in a mere hit-or-miss manner, with every possible kind of inconsistency among the various states, some general principles must be recognized and some clear policy be formulated. But there is no general agreement to-day among jurists and economists upon a definite and consistent plan in this matter.
Two alternative policies appear. The first is to make the scheme for taxing corporations quite different in principle and plan from that for taxing natural persons. The assumption in this is that the “general property tax” is an irremediable failure, and is particularly inapplicable to corporations. This plan goes along with the separation of state and local taxation.[12] An unfortunate result of this is to relieve the great mass of taxpayers of the state from, any apparent and measurable part of the tax burden for state purposes and thus to separate responsibility and power in state government. This policy nevertheless is favored by some of the leading authorities on finance.
The other policy is to tax the wealth and business of corporations (excepting those enjoying special privileges) in essentially the same way as other wealth and business. The improvement of corporate taxation would thus be but a part of the transformation of the “general property tax” into a general tax on tangible wealth.[13] If first there is recognized the error of assessing the equitable ownership interests in addition to the body of wealth, and secondly there is created an efficient agency of assessment, the taxation of corporations can be logically and easily brought into accord with a harmonious system of state and local taxation.[14]
Sec. 16. #General plan for corporate taxation.# The main features in such a plan of reform would be as follows:
(a) Assessment of all wealth by a state agency, with expert nonlocal assessors, appointed and serving only under the merit system.
(b) The assessment of the value of each enterprise and body of wealth as a unit for the whole state, and apportioned to the minor divisions as the basis for levying local taxes.
(c) Apportionment of the total value in the state among the localities by general rule, in the case of transportation and transmission companies, by mileage with due regard to the presence of local real estate and of special industrial equipment such as repair shops and power plants.
(d) Taxation of interstate enterprises only in due proportion to the whole business, by mileage or other rules; inter-state comity to be further developed in this matter.
(e) Account to be taken, in assessment, of various factors determining the earning power, such as good will, patents, and other monopolistic elements, pertaining to and helping to determine the value of the tangible plant of the enterprise.
(f) Account to be taken of the market value of securities and notes owned by a corporation, in determining the taxable value of the whole business, but these not to be treated as a separately assessable “property” (in addition to the tangible plant).
(g) Exemption of the holders of securities and evidences of indebtedness of corporations.{15}
(h) Treatment of special privileges granted to public-service corporations for the use of streets and public highways on the principle of rent-payment to the community rather than by levying a percentage on an assessment.
[Footnote 1: For example, the constitution of Alabama declares: “All taxes levied on property in this state shall be assessed in exact proportion to the value of such property,” etc. And the constitution of Indiana declares: “The general assembly shall provide, by law, for a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation of all property, both real and personal, excepting,” etc. Similar statements occur in most state constitutions.]
[Footnote 2: The general property tax in the United States constitutes:
Of the revenue receipts of the states 38 per cent. Of the revenue receipts of the counties 76 per cent. Of the revenue receipts of the incorporated places. 60 per cent.
The total amount collected in this way in 1913 was over $1,083,000,000.]
[Footnote 3: See above, ch. 2, secs. 2, 3, and reference there to Vol. I.]
[Footnote 4: See above, ch. 2.]
[Footnote 5: See Vol. I, pp. 116, 117, 145, 445-455.]
[Footnote 6: See Vol. I, pp. 117, 146, 453.]
[Footnote 7: See above, sec. 4.]
[Footnote 8: No reference is made in what follows to fees payable but once for the incorporation of new companies or at times of increasing the capital stock of an old one, variously called taxes on corporate charters, license taxes, incorporation fees, organization fees, and charter fees.]
[Footnote 9: See above, sec. 3.]
[Footnote 10: E.R.A. Seligman, “Essays on Taxation” (1895), p. 156.]
[Footnote 11: Seligman, op. cit. p. 136.]
[Footnote 12: See above, sec. 7.]
[Footnote 13: See above, sec. 5.]
[Footnote 14: The assessment feature of this proposal is exemplified more nearly than anywhere else, tho still imperfectly, in the “Indiana plan,” in which, however, the true concept of property is recognized only in so far as the shares of corporations of which all the wealth is taxed are not assessed to the shareholders.]
[Footnote 15. This need not prevent a supplementary system of graduated taxation on incomes. See below, ch. 18, sec. 10.]
CHAPTER 18
PERSONAL TAXES
Sec. 1. Inheritance tax laws. Sec. 2. Fiscal importance of inheritance taxes. Sec. 3. Income taxes; general nature. Sec.4. Income taxation by the states. Sec. 5. History of federal income taxation. Sec. 6. Events leading up to the law of 1913. Sec. 7. Main features of the law. Sec. 8. Exemptions and stoppage at source. Sec. 9. The graduation principle. Sec. 10. A system of taxation.
Sec. 1. #Inheritance tax laws.# There remain to be considered at least two important forms of taxation that are essentially _personal_ in their unit of assessment, in contrast with the foregoing which are (or should be, if consistent) essentially _impersonal_[1] These are the inheritance and the income taxes.
Until 1916 little use had been made of inheritance taxation for federal purposes. In that year, however. Congress passed a law which was expected to obtain about $20,000,000 a year from inheritances.
Forty-one states in America have inheritance tax laws (in 1915) which apply generally to property passing either by will or under the intestate laws of the state. The tax is for state purposes. These laws differ in many ways, but are nearly all alike in certain respects:
(1) In applying to the separate legacies rather than to the estate as a whole.[2]
(2) In taxing legacies to relatives in the direct line at a lower rate (or even exempting them entirely) than those to collateral relatives.[3]
(3) In exempting legacies below a certain amount.[4]
(4) In having rates progressing with the size of the legacy; (this feature is less general, but is prominent in most of the later laws).
Sec. 2. #Fiscal importance of inheritance taxes.# The fiscal importance of inheritance taxes has been comparatively not very great (except in New York State), but it has rapidly grown. In 1903 the receipts from this source (in 27 states) were over $7,000,000; in 1913 they were (in 35 states) $26,000,000. The spread of inheritance taxes and the higher and progressive rates applied are an expression in part of the need of additional revenues and in part of the growing popular concern regarding the concentration of wealth. Yet the actual legislation is something of a compromise between fiscal policy (to get revenues) and social policy (to reduce or to distribute the larger fortunes).[5] In New York legacies of over $1,000,000 are now taxable at 4 per cent to relatives in the direct line and to all others at 8 per cent. In Washington the tax to relatives in the direct line is but 1 per cent, but to others it may go as high as 12 per cent on legacies over $100,000. In Wisconsin, somewhat similarly, the tax may rise to 15 per cent on the excess above $500,000.
Sec. 3. #Income taxes; general nature.# All taxes, whether assessed upon the capital value of goods or not, come out of (reduce) the incomes now or later available for individuals. But there are various ways of attacking incomes, i.e., of apportioning the tax burden. Income taxation is that form in which the basis of the assessment and levy is the income of the taxpayer as it arises (not accumulated wealth, or capital, or business processes, or expenditures). Of the various conceptions of income[6] the one mainly employed in income taxation is monetary income arising in the course of business, supplemented occasionally (but not consistently) by some items of material income that are expected to come to the person. There is not in the long run such a contrast between wealth taxation and income taxation in their ultimate burden and effect as is usually supposed.
Indeed wealth (or capital) taxation as applied to accumulated wealth is more far-reaching than income taxation, for it falls upon the present worth alike of monetary and of psychic incomes (e.g., the value of a house whether it is let to a tenant or occupied by the owner). But, on the other hand, income taxation attacks directly the monetary incomes from labor, coming as wages, salaries, fees, and profits in business. This feature goes naturally with the fact that the income tax is essentially a personal tax, grouping the items of assessment about a person, whereas the “property” taxes are mainly (tho not consistently) impersonal, making the piece of wealth the primary object of assessment. This summation of each person’s income makes income taxation peculiarly suitable for progressive taxation with the social-welfare motive of equalizing the distribution of wealth. It is doubtless this technical assessment feature, rather than any essential advantage as a mode of taxation, that has led to its recent growth in popular favor.
Sec. 4. #Income taxation by the states#. Income taxes have been used widely in European countries, but not so much in the United States. Numerous attempts have been made by the states to tax incomes, but with small results. Personal incomes, when sought by local assessors, proved to be most elusive. There are (in 1913) but seven states with anything resembling a personal income tax.[7] These are Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin. Of these states Wisconsin has the most recent law, and one the widest in its application and the most important fiscally. The law applies a progressive rate to all incomes (with exemption of $700 from wages and salaries) and contains elaborate provisions for corporate taxation. The proceeds are distributed 10 per cent to the state, 20 per cent to the county, and 70 per cent to the municipality in which the tax is collected. In the six other states the tax is on incomes only exceeding a certain amount (North Carolina, $1000, the other states from $2000 to $3500 exemption); some apply to incomes from any source but others do not apply to incomes from property otherwise taxed. The total receipts from these state income taxes in 1913 were but $314,000.
Sec. 5. #History of federal income taxation.# The income tax seems destined to play a more important part in the fiscal system of the federal government. Until 1913, however, its part had been small. It began to be used under the law of 1867 (when the law passed in 1861 was replaced before it went into effect). This was repeatedly amended and finally repealed in 1870, to continue in force until the year 1872. The rate was 3 per cent on the excess of incomes over $600, and 5 per cent on the excess over $10,000. This law was repeatedly upheld by the United States Supreme Court as not in conflict with the Constitution. Its fiscal results were not large, as it was never effectively administered.
The next income tax law was that of 1894, enacted in connection with the tariff revision of that year. It was declared unconstitutional before it had gone into effect. The main ground for the decision was that a tax on incomes from rent of land as well as on incomes from personal property is direct, and must therefore be apportioned among the states according to population.
In the active discussion of social legislation in the years following this decision public sentiment developed favoring a renewed attempt to get such legislation by amending the Constitution. This was shown by the remarkable fact that a bill for the sixteenth amendment to the Constitution was passed unanimously by the Senate, and almost unanimously by the House. It was ratified by three-fourths of the states and became a law in 1913.[8]
Sec. 6. #Events leading up to the law of 1913.# Meantime, in 1909 and excise tax law had been passed, applying to corporations in a manner not open to the objections found by the Supreme Court to the law of 1894. The Democratic party, which had passed the law of 1894, was pledged to the passage of an income tax law when it came into power again in 1913. The reduction of the tariff, as well as growing expenditures, moreover, made necessary the development of new sources of revenue for the national government. In other countries the income tax had been found to be a part of a system of taxation especially valuable as “a balance wheel” to equalize the revenues and expenditures. It was deemed by some to be an additional advantage of an income tax that it would make the richer citizens better realize the nature and burden of public expenditure. Most other federal revenues, being derived from the tariff and from taxes on merchandise, are borne mainly by the purchasers and consumers.
An income tax was opposed as sectional taxation by many in the Eastern states where the owners of most of the larger fortunes reside. But to this Senator Elihu Root replied that the states where there was the greatest ownership of wealth pay the largest taxation under any scheme, and ought to.
Sec. 7. #Main features of the law.# The law as enacted[9] imposes (a) a “normal” tax of 1 per cent on the entire net income of every corporation (engaged in business for profit);
(b) a “normal” tax of 1 per cent on the excess above $3000 of every unmarried individual’s income (or $4000 for husband and wife, as indicated in the next section); (c) an “additional tax” (often called a super-tax) ranging from 1 to 6 per cent on individual incomes of larger amounts than $20,000. There are thus eight classes of persons, those entirely exempt, those paying only at the normal tax rate, and six different classes paying a super-tax.[10]
A person with an income of $1,000,000 thus pays $60,020, this being the amount indicated, $25,020 for the first half million plus 7 per cent on the second half million.
Sec. 8. #Exemptions and stoppage at source#. There are various exemptions, the first being that of $3000 on every individual income and of $4000 on the aggregate income of husband and wife living together.[11] Among other exceptions are sums paid for taxes (except assessments for local benefits), necessary business expenses, losses sustained, and (for the normal tax only) those parts of individual incomes derived from corporations which have paid the tax on them.
The difficulty of getting an honest and complete assessment of incomes is great. All taxation is deemed by the taxpayer to be “inquisitorial” in some degree, and this is particularly true of an income tax. In England had been developed the plan called “stoppage at source.” In our law the taxation of corporations at the rate of the normal tax, while requiring them to report the names of those receiving dividends and interest payments, affords an ingenious way of checking up the returns of individuals in respect to a class of investments which is steadily increasing in importance.
Sec. 9. #The graduation principle#. The most disputed feature of the income tax is the principle of graduation, or of progression. It is upheld in part because in this case it but offsets _regression_, that is relatively heavier taxation on the smaller incomes, in the case of the other kinds of taxes (tariff, property taxes, etc.). It is urged further that those of larger incomes, especially the largest, have marked advantages over others in making investments. Further it is urged that the higher the income the less does a certain rate cut into “the amount necessary for good living” (as was said in Congressional debate). This is in accord with the psychological principles of choice, of value, and of diminishing gratification. Finally, there is a widespread approval of the progressive rate just because it in so far acts as a leveling influence upon fortunes. The “additional” tax is already important fiscally, yielding over one-half of the total paid by individuals and one-fourth of the total from corporations and individuals.
The income tax returns for the first ten months of the law (March to December, 1913) showed 356,598 taxable individual incomes, equal to about 1 per cent of the taxable population (considering minors to be usually not taxable). Even this proportion, small as it is, is much larger than that of the European countries having a general income tax.
The first ten months’ yield (March 1, 1913, to December 31, 1913) was over $60,000,000. A remarkable fact is that 21 per cent of all taxable incomes (not persons) were in the single Borough of Manhattan (the main part of New York City). The receipts from the income tax in 1913 were nearly 10 per cent of the ordinary receipts of the federal government, and about 2 per cent of total revenue receipts of all branches of government, the income taxes paid by individuals being about 1 per cent of the same total, and the super-tax about 1/2 per cent of the same.
The receipts from the income tax during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1915, were $80,000,000, of which $39,000,000 was paid by corporations and $41,000,000 by individuals. Of the latter sum, over $24,000,000 was from the super-tax.
Sec. 10. #A system of taxation.# The task of reforming and developing the various kinds of taxes and of uniting them into a just and consistent plan for each of the divisions of government in the United States is a vast and difficult one. There are many conflicting interests among states, between states and nation, among the various minor political divisions, and among individuals and classes. There are also conflicting opinions regarding many features of the possible practical plans. Because of these it is safe to predict that progress will not be made quickly, steadily, nor always directed toward a clear ideal. If progress is to be rapid, the public must, however, have consistent principles by which its steps may be guided. In the foregoing kinds of taxation are the various elements which may be united into a system of taxation. It is useful to consider how this might be done.
At the basis of the whole tax structure is taxation, by value, of concrete wealth at the place where it is situated (_in situ_). This should be regardless of the distribution of ownership or of the residence of the owner. The present misnamed “general property tax” already presents the main outlines of this form of taxation and the general changes necessary in law and method of assessment have been indicated above.[12] Corporation taxation may be adjusted to this either by separate treatment and assignment to state purposes only, or more simply for most states, by assimilating it with the general taxation of wealth and allotting due shares of the proceeds to the various taxing divisions.[13] The national government can, because of its exclusive power of levying tariff duties and also because of its exclusive control over interstate commerce, reach the tax-paying ability of the nation effectively by a combination of tariff and internal revenue taxes. These become a part of business costs, and are diffused over the whole population in general prices.[14]
This system of impersonal wealth taxation may then be supplemented by personal taxation, applied through inheritance and income taxes. These forms of taxation extend over and reach many of the same persons and incomes as do ultimately the impersonal taxes. But the summation of personal incomes gives the necessary condition for applying the principle of progression so far as this is, by public opinion, deemed desirable either for fiscal or for social reasons.
[Footnote 1: See above, ch.17, sec. 3, note, and sec. 5, on this distinction. The poll tax also is personal: see ch. 16, sec. 9.]
[Footnote 2: In Utah the tax is 5 per cent on all estates over $10,000.]
[Footnote 3. Exception, Utah.]
[Footnote 4: Exceptions are Missouri, New Hampshire, Vermont, Virginia.]
[Footnote 5: It would be more consistent with the purpose of equalizing fortunes to vary the rate not according to the size of the legacy but according to the size of the fortune which the legatee has, or would have, after receiving the legacy.]
[Footnote 6: See Vol. I, p. 26.]
[Footnote 7: In addition, certain items of receipts of companies or incomes of individuals are arbitrarily defined as property for purposes of taxation in a few cases in about fifteen other states. See Wealth, Debt, and Taxation, Report of the Bureau of the Census, 1907, p. 622.]
[Footnote 8: Article XVI. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census enumeration.]
[Footnote 9: It constitutes sec. 2 of the tariff act of 1913 entitled “An act to reduce tariff duties and to provide revenue for the government and for other purposes.”]
[Footnote 10: This may be seen in the following table: Normal Rate on excess Total tax on in next class tax on lower Nor- Addi- upper Total rate limit mal tional limit per cent Under $3,000 0 0 0 0 0.00 to 0.00 $3,000-$20,000 0 1 0 170 0.00 to 0.85 $20,000-$50,000 170 1 1 770 0.85 to 1.54 $50,000-$75,000 770 1 2 1,520 1.54 to 2.02 $75,000-$100,000 1,520 1 3 2,520 2.02 to 2.52 $100,000-$250,000 2,520 1 4 10,020 2.52 to 4.00 $250,000-$500,000 10,020 1 5 25,020 4.00 to 5.00 In excess of $500,00 25,020 1 6 upwards 5.00 to 7.00
By legislation in the summer of 1916, after the foregoing was in type, the “normal” rate was doubled and the additional rates were raised.]
[Footnote 11: The exemption is $3000 for each if they are not living together. Thus the law offers a reward of $20 to make marriage a failure.]
[Footnote 12: See above, ch. 17, sec. 5.]
[Footnote 13: See above, ch. 17, secs. 15, 16.]
[Footnote 14: See above, ch. 15, sec. 14, first paragraph.]
PART V
PROBLEMS OF THE WAGE SYSTEM
CHAPTER 19
METHODS OF INDUSTRIAL REMUNERATION
Sec. 1. Workers subordinate in early societies. Sec. 2. Workers in the Middle Ages. Sec. 3. Growth of the wage system. Sec. 4. Practicability of the wage system. Sec. 5. Time work. Sec. 6. Task work. Sec. 7. Piece work. Sec. 8. Premium plans. Sec. 9. Aim of profit-sharing. Sec. 10. Examples of profit-sharing. Sec. 11. Difficulties in profit-sharing. Sec. 12. Defective theory of profit-sharing. Sec. 13. Purpose of producers’ cooeperation. Sec. 14. Limited success of the plan. Sec. 15. Its main difficulty.
Sec. 1. #Workers subordinate in early societies#. As far back as the history of settled and populous communities can be traced, the masses of workers have been subordinate. Civilization began with direction, with obedience to superiors on the part of the mass of men. Even in the rudest tribes, the women and children were subject to the will of the stronger, the head of the family. Among the Aryan races the family system was widened, and the patriarch of the tribe secured personal obedience and economic services from all members of the community. Chattel slavery, the typical form of industrial organization in early tropical civilization, seems to have been one of the necessary steps to progress from rude conditions; students to-day incline to view it as an essential stage in the history of the race. But as conditions changed with industrial development, chattel slavery became an inefficient form of industrial organization and a hindrance to progress.
Sec. 2. #Workers in the Middle Ages#. Serfdom for rural labor and many limitations on the workman’s freedom in the towns were the prevailing conditions in medieval Europe. Serfdom was both a political and an economic relation. The self was bound to the soil; the lord could command and control him; but the serf’s obligations were pretty well defined. He had to give services, but in return for them he got something definite in the form of protection and the use of land. Between the lord and the serf there continued an implied contract, which passed by inheritance from father to son, in the case both of the master and of the serf. In the towns conditions were better for the free master class of the artisans who owned their tools and often a little shop where they both made and sold their products. But the mass of the workers, shut out from special privileges, bore a heavy burden. There were strict rules of apprenticeship; gild regulations forbidding the free choice of a trade or a residence; laws against migration into the town; settlement laws making it impossible for poor men to remove from one place to another; arbitrary regulation of wages, either by the gilds in the towns or by national councils and parliaments, forbidding the workmen to take the competitive wages that economic conditions would have forced the employers to pay; combination laws forbidding laborers to combine in their own interest. These conditions prevailed even in the periods and in the countries often referred to as particularly favorable for the working classes (such as England in the fifteenth century).
Sec. 3. #Growth of the wage system#. Throughout the Middle Ages these conditions were gradually changing, and the changes were hastened by the discovery of America, by the social unrest accompanying the Reformation, and by other forces. Servile dues in the rural districts were, by the sixteenth century, commuted for cash payments in England and had begun to disappear in the other Western countries of Europe. The agricultural work was done partly by the peasant landowners, partly by yeomen farmers on their own land, and partly by laborers hired by landowners or by tenant farmers (enterprisers with some capital for equipment). The growth of commerce and of the mechanical trades in the towns required larger ships, factories, and shops, and increasing investments. This required in the towns an increasing proportion of hired laborers having little or no capital invested in industry, and living on wages. This change went on more and more rapidly with the introduction of machinery in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and “the wage system” grew steadily to be a more and more important part of the whole economic structure.[1]
Sec. 4. #Practicability of the wage system#. This change has brought with it grave problems of social organization and social welfare, which it is not the place here to discuss. But whatever be the difficulties of the wage system it has certain practical merits of workableness which account for its progress and dominance.[2] The larger the market and the longer the waiting period in industry, the greater the element of uncertainty and financial risk. Under the wage contract the employer, as the one best prepared to do it, takes the risk as to the future selling price of the product; the worker gets in a definite sum at once the market value of his services. Wage payment, therefore, is a form of insurance to the workingman; he gets something definite instead of taking chances he is ill prepared to take. Wage payment is a form of credit to the laborer whose labor is applied to producing the goods for customers distant in time and in place. The employer advances to the workman the present value of the future sale, discounting it at the prevailing rate of interest.
Wage payment implies a contract by which the employee on his part agrees to render service and the employer on his part agrees to pay for it. The methods of determining and measuring the amount of service of the employee are called “methods of industrial remuneration.” The many varieties may be grouped in two classes: time payment and piece payment, corresponding with the two modes of measuring labor, time work and piece work.
Sec. 5. #Time work.# Time work came first and was long almost the only method. In time work the employee is paid by the hour, day, week, month, or year, as the case may be. This is very satisfactory for small enterprises, where the master works with his own hands alongside of the employee, overseeing him, teaching him, and stimulating him by his own presence and example of industry. This method prevails still in nearly all farming work, in many kinds of manufacturing, in most transportation, in clerical positions in trade, and in general where the employee must perform a variety of tasks.
Considering a brief period, it might seem that in time work the worker is paid by time regardless of his effort or performance. However, in every industry there is a recognized, fairly definite standard of accomplishment for those getting the regular market rates of wages, so that the time-standard implies some performance- or piece-standard also. But this is judged by the employer only in a general way, and very commonly men of different degrees of efficiency continue for some time to receive the same money wage. Still, where any differences become noticeable to the employer in quantity of work, quality of work, or personal qualities of honesty, reliability, and good temper, the better workman is likely to obtain a better position, higher pay, more regular employment, or some other form of reward. The employer is more likely at the end of any period of employment, to discharge the man who falls short either in quantity or quality of work, and to retain and advance the better worker. The method of time-payment does not directly tempt the workman to slight the quality of his work by haste. It does not keep constantly before the worker the thought of his own interest in rapid work, often with an accompanying nervous and mental strain. In most occupations, therefore, the workers prefer time work. It does not take exclusive account of the quantity of material product, but leaves place for estimating various personal qualities of the employee which are of value in a business.
Sec. 6. #Task work#. There are thus both advantages and disadvantages in time work, and their relative importance varies in different industries and industrial conditions. Especially is the difficulty of supervising workers and of ensuring the performance of a certain standard, or minimum, amount and quality of work great in larger enterprises. Various methods of measuring the performance of the worker directly by some other than the time-standards have been developed. All of these, in a general way, involve the piece work principle.
Task work is nominally time work, with a penalty if a certain amount of product is not turned out within a given period. The agreement may be that if the specified task is not done within the regular time, it must be completed in overtime without additional pay. This is also called “doing a stint.” This method has been extensively used in the ready-made clothing business in America, and is to some extent involved in many cases of wage payment in manufacturing.
Sec. 7. #Piece work.# Piece work of the simpler, or ordinary kind, is that where the payment varies just according to the amount of the product, by some physical measurement, as yards of cloth woven, number of pieces turned on a lathe, or amount of type set by a printer. Usually careful inspection by some agent of the employer serves to keep the quality up to a certain standard. The rejected pieces are not paid for, and sometimes also the workmen are required to pay for the materials wasted by their poor work. Piece payment is convenient for home work, such as that of rural peasants weaving cloth for commission merchants or as that of tenement workers in cities. It is also employed very widely in the larger factories in textile and mechanical industries. Selling on commission is a form of piece work.
In piece work the motive to activity is ever present to the worker, and almost always the worker turns out a larger product when paid by the piece than when paid by time. The employer benefits by the more efficient use of his machinery and equipment even when the price per piece is not reduced with the larger output per worker. The worker’s earnings may increase rapidly under this plan, but as the manual dexterity acquired is usually of a very special kind which can be used only on one particular machine, the worker has little opportunity to resist a cut in his wages. For this reason and because of the undue strain upon the worker that often occurs, piece work is in many trades not favored by the workers.[3]
Sec. 8. #Premium plans.# Various modifications of piece work have been developed of late, all involving the features of a minimum task and of a premium for performance beyond that point. These plans are called “premium plans,” “progressive wage systems,” and “gain sharing.” One of the first of these, Halsey’s premium plan, fixes a standard time for a job and if the worker falls short of, or merely attains to, that standard he gets the regular pay; but if he takes less than the standard time he receives a fixed premium per hour for the time saved. For example, if the standard time is 10 hours for a $3.00 job and the premium for speed is ten cents per hour, the worker would receive 20 cents premium if he did the work in 8 hours ($2.40 +.20, total $2.60), and 50 cents premium if he did it in 5 hours ($1.50 + 50, total $2.00). His average wage per hour thus rises as his speed increases; it becomes 32.5 cents per hour when the job is done in 8 hours, and 40 cents per hour when the job is done in 5 hours. The reduction of cost per job to the employer evidently would be 40 cents in the first case, and $1.00 in the second. This is Halsey’s plan, by which the worker gets one-third and the employer two-thirds of the time saved.
The same plan has been applied (Weir’s method) with a premium that equally divides between the workman and the employer the time saved. By Rowan’s method the premium is not a fixed sum but a percentage of the standard rate per hour equal to the percentage of reduction in time consumed. For example, if in the foregoing example the time were reduced 20 per cent (to 8 hours) the premium would be 20 per cent of 30 cents, and the workman would receive 36 cents per hour. By this plan the premium becomes less for the later reductions than in either of the other plans. The utmost possible wages would be double the standard rate.
A number of other variations have been worked out by the promoters of recent scientific management, and are known as Taylor’s, Gantt’s, and Emerson’s plans. The authors of all these plans agree as to the importance of fixing the standard rate so that it will leave a possibility of considerable improvement with unusual effort, and of leaving the standard rate and premium unchanged as long as no new process or new machinery is introduced into the business. If this is not done the employees lose faith in the plan and refuse to make the necessary effort to earn the premium. Most of these plans of payment recently have been connected with experiments and studies in scientific management to reduce the time and increase the ease of the operations.
In a variety of ways a bonus or a premium may be paid for quality, or for economy in the use of materials (as to a fireman for using less coal), or for various other results. Every business has its peculiar conditions, which make certain results especially desirable, and certain methods of reward practicable. In some industries, for example, the various plans of piece work and of premium payment are applied to groups of workers (as in collective piece work), the total payment being then divided among the members of the group in some agreed proportion.
Sec. 9. #Aim of profit-sharing.# Profit-sharing is rewarding the laborer with a share of the profits in addition to his usual contract wages. Payments by the piece and premiums for output are solely dependent on the efforts of the particular workman (or collective group), but in the plan of profit-sharing a premium is given in addition to the regular wage if, at the end of the year, the business as a whole has yielded a profit above a certain amount. Profit-sharing is not merely a gift; it is done usually in accordance with a definite promise in advance. The employer adopting the plan does not intend to lose by it. His purpose is to stimulate the industry of the workers, thus reducing waste and cost of labor and supervision, and thereby increasing profits. He offers to divide with the workman the additional profits which are expected to result from their efforts. There is, in every factory, greater or less waste of materials, destruction of tools, and loss of time, that no rules or penalties can prevent. If the worker can be made to take a strong enough personal interest he will use care when the eye of the foreman is not upon him. The product also can be slightly increased in many ways by the workman’s exertions or suggestions. In some cases the quality of the work cannot be insured by the closest inspection as well as it can be by a small degree of personal interest. Either responsibility for the fault cannot be fixed, or the defect is one not measurable by any easily applied standard. Strikes may be averted, good feeling promoted, and contentment furthered if the interest of the worker can be made to approach, and in large measure to become in harmony with, that of the employer. The economic result of the plan, if it can be made to work, should be to reduce the costs of these establishments below what they are. The crucial question is whether profit-sharing alone in any particular case will insure that the costs will be less than those of competitors, thus giving a source out of which an increased amount, really a wage, can be paid to the laborer. For the amount of profits is affected not only by the amount of output, but also by a number of other things that are quite outside the control of the workmen.
Sec. 10. #Examples of profit-sharing.# The profit-sharing plan seems first to have been successfully tried in Paris, in 1842, by Leclaire, a house-painter. In house-painting there is often a great waste of materials and time by men working singly or in small groups in different parts of the city. By this new method Leclaire enlisted the aid of the workmen, reduced the costs, and increased the profits. It is a remarkable fact that the plan has been continued successfully by the same firm to the present time. It has been tried in many hundreds, possibly thousands, of cases, and is operating in some form or another in more than a hundred firms in Europe and America. The most notable examples of profit-sharing in the United States are the Pillsbury Mills in Minneapolis, Procter and Gamble’s soap-factories, in Ivorydale, Ohio, the Nelson Mfg. Co., in Leclaire, Ill., and the Ford Automobile Works, in Detroit. In some cases both manufacturer and workmen value the system highly. It probably has its greatest success when applied in prosperous establishments where profits are regular and large, and where a steady working force is especially desired. The proportion of business done in this way is not large. One hundred firms is a very small fraction of 1 per cent of the total number of firms in Germany, France, England, and America. A still more important fact is that true profit-sharing has spread little since 1890, tho various practices have developed under that name. The most noteworthy of these is the selling of stock, usually at a somewhat lower price, to the employees of a corporation so that, as stockholders, they may have a motive to work for the success of the company (e.g., the United States Steel Corporation). This method as applied to a select few of the employees, who are advanced to official positions in a corporation, is very widely adopted.
Sec. 11. #Difficulties in profit-sharing.# It seems at first difficult to explain this comparative failure of a plan that looks so attractive in spirit and of which so much was hoped. Yet objections come from the side both of the workman and of the employer. The workman lacks knowledge of the business and is suspicious of the bookkeeping. If at the end of the year the books show no profits, the workman loses confidence, considers the plan to be mere deception, and rejects it. The working of the plan remains in the employer’s hands, and the workman really is not a partner in the business. Moreover, the plan puts a limitation upon the workman’s freedom to compete for better wages by changing his place of work. It is indispensable to make length of service in some degree a condition to the sharing of profits. Workmen, coming and going, cannot be allowed to share; the percentage given to the others increases with length of employment. Whenever men are thus practically subject to a fine (equal to the amount of shared profits) if they accept a better position, there is danger of a covert lowering of wages. The plan tends to break up the trade-unions, which is one of the reasons that the employers like it, and is the main reason that organized labor opposes it.
The employer on his part objects to the interference with his management, the troublesome inspection of the books, and the constant complaints of the workmen. He dislikes to have the profits known; if they are large, the advertisement of success invites competition; if they are small, publicity may injure credit and depress the value of the enterprise. In view of all these difficulties it is not surprising