TAXATION.

Tuapeka Times, Volume XVII, Issue 1028, 29 March 1884, Page 3

TAXATION.

[To the Editor.) Sib, — After carefully reading the two articles of the Spanish nobleman " Don Carlo*," on " Taxation," in your journal of the 19th and 26th inrt., one can come to no other conclusion than that the noble senor had not graduated in a school of political economy, but was attempting to enlighten thepublio with a little garbage, which he bad picked up indiscriminately from many false sources, and which he mistook for that deep* searching and logical science. His ignorance in the first principles of political economy was so flimsily veiled that anyone possessing but a slight acquaintance with the subject could at onco detect bis superficiality. The writer gives "four maxims or rules" for guidance in lerying taxes— probably Spanish, but smacking of Adam Smith — and innocently tells us that the difficulty is with tho first and the third. One would naturally suppose that the " difficulty" would have been shown and analysed in a systematic and scientific manner, so that the reader could have understood those rules which prevent euch a difficulty ; but, no ! They are given as " nuts for political aspirants to craok," The noble Don then proceeds to inform us that there are three sources of wealth— viz , " land, labour, and capital ;" and that " these thiee are the only things that can be taxed ." Now, this is nonsense pure and simple, and very misleading to all who accept the Don's 'dictum as truo. He apparently is a rich man in hard cash, and plauts his aristocratic thumb on his money and says : "This, and this alone, constitutes wealth." This is the very essence of absurdity— to imagine that nothing is wealth but money: the very things that he asserts, so dogmatically, to be only the sources of wealth aro actually wealth. What an erroneous conception, then, to hold that money alone i> wealth? 'J hie error wai tenaciously adhered to and believed in by the mercantile community one hundred years •go ; but no authority is given by political scientists for promulgating such a false error in this advanced age. It is to be hoped, Sir, that your noble contributor will not deem it an affront if I tell him money is simply a measure whereby we valuo commodities, and any commodity that has an exchange value constitutes wealth. To make this clear let u« take an example: Suppose that a foot* man is required, and two suitable persons— A and B— present themselves for engagement. A is a fair specimen of humanity, with regard to the upper portion of his body, but a little spindly in the lower extremities, being deficient in good round calres ; whereas Bs calves are well rounded and plump, and in nil other respects he is equal to A. Now, supposing these two men to be endowed with equal intelligence and ability to discharge the duties of a footmau. The preference will be given to B, simply because he possesses a good pair of calves, and they constitute wealth ; for they have an exchange value. The " Don's " ideas on the land tax are very hazy and ambiguous, and still further show the garbage of nonsense. But, Sir, as I have not tho remotest intention of teaching your contributor through your columns the principles of political science, I will therefore conclude by recommending him to rea^l up before attempting to enlighten the public on a subject of which he knows absolutely nothing. — I am, &c. f ' A.B.C.