Thomas Paine · Complete work
Part II: Chapter V, 4
Part II: Chapter V, 4 of 41. Read it here for reference, or continue through the entire work without leaving the reader.
Open the complete readerOriginal 18th-century English
The difference between the first four hundred years and the last three, is so astonishing, as to warrant an opinion, that the national character of the English has changed. It would have been impossible to have dragooned the former English, into the excess of taxation that now exists; and when it is considered that the pay of the army, the navy, and of all the revenue officers, is the same now as it was about a hundred years ago, when the taxes were not above a tenth part of what they are at present, it appears impossible to account for the enormous increase and expenditure on any other ground, than extravagance, corruption, and intrigue.*31
With the Revolution of 1688, and more so since the Hanover succession, came the destructive system of continental intrigues, and the rage for foreign wars and foreign dominion; systems of such secure mystery that the expenses admit of no accounts; a single line stands for millions. To what excess taxation might have extended had not the French revolution contributed to break up the system, and put an end to pretences, is impossible to say. Viewed, as that revolution ought to be, as the fortunate means of lessening the load of taxes of both countries, it is of as much importance to England as to France; and, if properly improved to all the advantages of which it is capable, and to which it leads, deserves as much celebration in one country as the other.
In pursuing this subject, I shall begin with the matter that first presents itself, that of lessening the burthen of taxes; and shall then add such matter and propositions, respecting the three countries of England, France, and America, as the present prospect of things appears to justify: I mean, an alliance of the three, for the purposes that will be mentioned in their proper place.
What has happened may happen again. By the statement before shown of the progress of taxation, it is seen that taxes have been lessened to a fourth part of what they had formerly been. Though the present circumstances do not admit of the same reduction, yet they admit of such a beginning, as may accomplish that end in less time than in the former case.
The amount of taxes for the year ending at Michaelmas 1788, was as follows:
Land-tax L 1,950,000
Customs 3,789,274
Excise (including old and new malt) 6,751,727
Stamps 1,278,214
Miscellaneous taxes and incidents 1,803,755
—————-
L15,572,755
Since the year 1788, upwards of one million new taxes have been laid on, besides the produce of the lotteries; and as the taxes have in general been more productive since than before, the amount may be taken, in round numbers, at L17,000,000. (The expense of collection and the drawbacks, which together amount to nearly two millions, are paid out of the gross amount; and the above is the net sum paid into the exchequer). This sum of seventeen millions is applied to two different purposes; the one to pay the interest of the National Debt, the other to the current expenses of each year. About nine millions are appropriated to the former; and the remainder, being nearly eight millions, to the latter. As to the million, said to be applied to the reduction of the debt, it is so much like paying with one hand and taking out with the other, as not to merit much notice. It happened, fortunately for France, that she possessed national domains for paying off her debt, and thereby lessening her taxes; but as this is not the case with England, her reduction of taxes can only take place by reducing the current expenses, which may now be done to the amount of four or five millions annually, as will hereafter appear. When this is accomplished it will more than counter-balance the enormous charge of the American war; and the saving will be from the same source from whence the evil arose. As to the national debt, however heavy the interest may be in taxes, yet, as it serves to keep alive a capital useful to commerce, it balances by its effects a considerable part of its own weight; and as the quantity of gold and silver is, by some means or other, short of its proper proportion, being not more than twenty millions, whereas it should be sixty (foreign intrigue, foreign wars, foreign dominions, will in a great measure account for the deficiency), it would, besides the injustice, be bad policy to extinguish a capital that serves to supply that defect. But with respect to the current expense, whatever is saved therefrom is gain. The excess may serve to keep corruption alive, but it has no re-action on credit and commerce, like the interest of the debt.
It is now very probable that the English Government (I do not mean the nation) is unfriendly to the French Revolution. Whatever serves to expose the intrigue and lessen the influence of courts, by lessening taxation, will be unwelcome to those who feed upon the spoil. Whilst the clamour of French intrigue, arbitrary power, popery, and wooden shoes could be kept up, the nation was easily allured and alarmed into taxes. Those days are now past: deception, it is to be hoped, has reaped its last harvest, and better times are in prospect for both countries, and for the world.
Taking it for granted that an alliance may be formed between England, France, and America for the purposes hereafter to be mentioned, the national expenses of France and England may consequently be lessened. The same fleets and armies will no longer be necessary to either, and the reduction can be made ship for ship on each side. But to accomplish these objects the governments must necessarily be fitted to a common and correspondent principle. Confidence can never take place while an hostile disposition remains in either, or where mystery and secrecy on one side is opposed to candour and openness on the other.
These matters admitted, the national expenses might be put back, for the sake of a precedent, to what they were at some period when France and England were not enemies. This, consequently, must be prior to the Hanover succession, and also to the Revolution of 1688.*32 The first instance that presents itself, antecedent to those dates, is in the very wasteful and profligate times of Charles the Second; at which time England and France acted as allies. If I have chosen a period of great extravagance, it will serve to show modern extravagance in a still worse light; especially as the pay of the navy, the army, and the revenue officers has not increased since that time.
The peace establishment was then as follows (see Sir John Sinclair's History of the Revenue):
Navy L 300,000
Army 212,000
Ordnance 40,000
Civil List 462,115
———-
L1,014,115
The parliament, however, settled the whole annual peace establishment at $1,200,000.*33 If we go back to the time of Elizabeth the amount of all the taxes was but half a million, yet the nation sees nothing during that period that reproaches it with want of consequence.
All circumstances, then, taken together, arising from the French revolution, from the approaching harmony and reciprocal interest of the two nations, the abolition of the court intrigue on both sides, and the progress of knowledge in the science of government, the annual expenditure might be put back to one million and a half, viz.:
Navy L 500,000
Army 500,000
Expenses of Government 500,000
—————
L1,500,000
Even this sum is six times greater than the expenses of government are in America, yet the civil internal government in England (I mean that administered by means of quarter sessions, juries and assize, and which, in fact, is nearly the whole, and performed by the nation), is less expense upon the revenue, than the same species and portion of government is in America.
It is time that nations should be rational, and not be governed like animals, for the pleasure of their riders. To read the history of kings, a man would be almost inclined to suppose that government consisted in stag-hunting, and that every nation paid a million a-year to a huntsman. Man ought to have pride, or shame enough to blush at being thus imposed upon, and when he feels his proper character he will. Upon all subjects of this nature, there is often passing in the mind, a train of ideas he has not yet accustomed himself to encourage and communicate. Restrained by something that puts on the character of prudence, he acts the hypocrite upon himself as well as to others. It is, however, curious to observe how soon this spell can be dissolved. A single expression, boldly conceived and uttered, will sometimes put a whole company into their proper feelings: and whole nations are acted on in the same manner.
As to the offices of which any civil government may be composed, it matters but little by what names they are described. In the routine of business, as before observed, whether a man be styled a president, a king, an emperor, a senator, or anything else, it is impossible that any service he can perform, can merit from a nation more than ten thousand pounds a year; and as no man should be paid beyond his services, so every man of a proper heart will not accept more. Public money ought to be touched with the most scrupulous consciousness of honour. It is not the produce of riches only, but of the hard earnings of labour and poverty. It is drawn even from the bitterness of want and misery. Not a beggar passes, or perishes in the streets, whose mite is not in that mass.
Were it possible that the Congress of America could be so lost to their duty, and to the interest of their constituents, as to offer General Washington, as president of America, a million a year, he would not, and he could not, accept it. His sense of honour is of another kind. It has cost England almost seventy millions sterling, to maintain a family imported from abroad, of very inferior capacity to thousands in the nation; and scarcely a year has passed that has not produced some new mercenary application. Even the physicians' bills have been sent to the public to be paid. No wonder that jails are crowded, and taxes and poor-rates increased. Under such systems, nothing is to be looked for but what has already happened; and as to reformation, whenever it come, it must be from the nation, and not from the government.
To show that the sum of five hundred thousand pounds is more than sufficient to defray all the expenses of the government, exclusive of navies and armies, the following estimate is added, for any country, of the same extent as England.
In the first place, three hundred representatives fairly elected, are sufficient for all the purposes to which legislation can apply, and preferable to a larger number. They may be divided into two or three houses, or meet in one, as in France, or in any manner a constitution shall direct.
As representation is always considered, in free countries, as the most honourable of all stations, the allowance made to it is merely to defray the expense which the representatives incur by that service, and not to it as an office.
If an allowance, at the rate of five hundred pounds per
annum, be made to every representative, deducting for
non-attendance, the expense, if the whole number
attended for six months, each year, would be L 75,00
The official departments cannot reasonably exceed the
following number, with the salaries annexed:
Three offices at ten thousand pounds each L 30,000
Ten ditto, at five thousand pounds each 50,000
Twenty ditto, at two thousand pounds each 40,000
Forty ditto, at one thousand pounds each 40,000
Two hundred ditto, at five hundred pounds each 100,000
Three hundred ditto, at two hundred pounds each 60,000
Five hundred ditto, at one hundred pounds each 50,000
Seven hundred ditto, at seventy-five pounds each 52,500
————
L497,500
If a nation choose, it can deduct four per cent. from all offices, and make one of twenty thousand per annum.
All revenue officers are paid out of the monies they collect, and therefore, are not in this estimation.
The foregoing is not offered as an exact detail of offices, but to show the number of rate of salaries which five hundred thousand pounds will support; and it will, on experience, be found impracticable to find business sufficient to justify even this expense. As to the manner in which office business is now performed, the Chiefs, in several offices, such as the post-office, and certain offices in the exchequer, etc., do little more than sign their names three or four times a year; and the whole duty is performed by under-clerks.
Taking, therefore, one million and a half as a sufficient peace establishment for all the honest purposes of government, which is three hundred thousand pounds more than the peace establishment in the profligate and prodigal times of Charles the Second (notwithstanding, as has been already observed, the pay and salaries of the army, navy, and revenue officers, continue the same as at that period), there will remain a surplus of upwards of six millions out of the present current expenses. The question then will be, how to dispose of this surplus.
Whoever has observed the manner in which trade and taxes twist themselves together, must be sensible of the impossibility of separating them suddenly.
First. Because the articles now on hand are already charged with the duty, and the reduction cannot take place on the present stock.
Musean translation
Mouseia’s complete machine-assisted Musean translation, made directly from the complete English text of Parts I and II with Paine’s preface, appendix and author’s notes (Conway’s edition, 1894) for fidelity, the author’s force and cadence, and modern clarity.
The contrast between the first four hundred years and the last three is so striking that it suggests the national character of the English has changed. It would have been impossible to force the English of the earlier period to bear the excessive taxation of today. And when we consider that the army, navy, and revenue officers receive the same pay now as they did about a hundred years ago, when taxes were no more than one tenth of their present level, it seems impossible to account for this enormous increase in expenditure except by extravagance, corruption, and intrigue.*31
With the Revolution of 1688, and still more with the Hanover succession, came the ruinous system of continental intrigues and the fever for foreign wars and dominion: systems so securely hidden that their expenses cannot be accounted for; a single line represents millions. How far taxation might have risen had the French Revolution not helped break up this system and put an end to its pretexts is impossible to say. Seen as it ought to be, as the fortunate means of lightening the tax burden in both countries, that revolution matters as much to England as to France. If its full possibilities and consequences are properly pursued, it deserves equal celebration in each.
In pursuing this subject, I shall begin with what first presents itself: reducing the burden of taxes. I shall then offer such further observations and proposals concerning England, France, and America as present prospects seem to justify. I mean an alliance of the three, for purposes to be described in due course.
What has happened may happen again. The account given earlier of the progress of taxation shows that taxes have once been reduced to a fourth of their former level. Though present circumstances do not allow the same reduction immediately, they allow a beginning that may achieve it in less time than before.
The taxes for the year ending at Michaelmas 1788 amounted to:
Land tax L 1,950,000
Customs 3,789,274
Excise (including old and new malt) 6,751,727
Stamps 1,278,214
Miscellaneous taxes and receipts 1,803,755
L15,572,755
Since 1788, more than one million in new taxes has been imposed, besides lottery proceeds. As taxes have generally yielded more since then, the total may be put, in round figures, at L17,000,000. (The cost of collection and the drawbacks, together nearly two millions, are paid from the gross receipts; the figure above is the net sum paid into the exchequer.) These seventeen millions serve two purposes: paying interest on the National Debt and meeting the current expenses of each year. About nine millions go to the former, and the remaining nearly eight millions to the latter. The million said to go toward reducing the debt so resembles paying with one hand and taking back with the other that it scarcely merits notice. France was fortunate in possessing national domains with which to pay down her debt and thus reduce taxes. England has no such resource, so she can reduce taxes only by cutting current expenses—as will be shown, by four or five millions a year. Once achieved, this will more than offset the enormous cost of the American war; the saving will come from the very source of the harm. As for the National Debt, however heavy its interest may be as a tax burden, it keeps in circulation capital useful to commerce, and thus offsets a considerable part of its own weight. Gold and silver, for one reason or another, fall short of their proper proportion: there are no more than twenty millions when there ought to be sixty. Foreign intrigue, wars, and dominions largely account for the shortage. Quite apart from the injustice, extinguishing capital that helps supply this lack would be bad policy. But every saving in current expenses is a gain. Their excess may sustain corruption, but it does not act in return upon credit and commerce as the interest on the debt does.
It is now very probable that the English Government—I do not mean the nation—is hostile to the French Revolution. Anything that exposes the intrigues of courts and diminishes their influence by lowering taxes will be unwelcome to those who live on the spoils. So long as the outcry over French intrigue, arbitrary power, popery, and wooden shoes could be maintained, the nation could easily be enticed and frightened into paying taxes. Those days are past. Let us hope deception has gathered its last harvest, and that better times await both countries and the world.
Assume an alliance can be formed between England, France, and America for the purposes to be mentioned later: the national expenses of France and England can then be reduced. Neither will need the same fleets and armies, and reductions can be made ship for ship on either side. But to accomplish this, their governments must necessarily rest on a shared and corresponding principle. Trust cannot arise while hostility remains on either side, or while one side's mystery and secrecy confront the other's candor and openness.
Once these points are granted, national expenses might, for the sake of precedent, return to their level at a time when France and England were not enemies. That must be before both the Hanover succession and the Revolution of 1688.*32 The first example before those dates is the exceedingly wasteful and dissolute reign of Charles the Second, when England and France were allies. Choosing a period of great extravagance casts modern extravagance in an even worse light, especially since the pay of the navy, army, and revenue officers has not risen since then.
The peacetime establishment then stood as follows (see Sir John Sinclair's History of the Revenue):
Navy L 300,000
Army 212,000
Ordnance 40,000
Civil List 462,115
L1,014,115
Parliament, however, fixed the entire annual peacetime establishment at $1,200,000.*33 Go back to Elizabeth's reign and all the taxes amounted to only half a million; yet the nation sees nothing in that period to reproach it with a lack of consequence.
Taking all circumstances together—the French Revolution, the approaching harmony and mutual interest of the two nations, the abolition of court intrigue on both sides, and advances in the understanding of government—annual expenditure could return to one million and a half, namely:
Navy L 500,000
Army 500,000
Expenses of Government 500,000
L1,500,000
Even this is six times the expense of government in America. Yet civil government within England—I mean what is administered through quarter sessions, juries, and assizes, which is in fact almost the whole and is carried out by the nation—costs the public revenue less than the corresponding kind and share of government in America.
It is time for nations to be rational, rather than ruled like animals for their riders' pleasure. Read the history of kings, and you might almost suppose government consisted of stag hunting, with every nation paying a huntsman a million a year. People ought to have enough pride, or shame, to blush at being so deceived; once they recognize their proper character, they will. On such subjects, a succession of ideas often passes through the mind that a person has not yet grown used to encouraging or expressing. Restrained by something that passes for prudence, he plays the hypocrite both with himself and with others. Yet it is remarkable how quickly the spell can break. A single bold thought, spoken aloud, can sometimes bring an entire company back to its true feelings; whole nations respond in the same way.
The names given to the offices of a civil government matter little. In the ordinary course of business, as I noted earlier, whether someone is called a president, king, emperor, senator, or anything else, no service he can render a nation can possibly be worth more than ten thousand pounds a year. As no one should receive more than his services warrant, so no one with a decent heart will accept more. Public money should be handled with the most scrupulous sense of honor. It comes not only from wealth but from the hard earnings of labor and poverty. It is drawn even from the bitterness of need and misery. No beggar walks or dies in the streets without having contributed his mite to that sum.
If the Congress of America could so betray its duty and its constituents' interests as to offer General Washington, as president of America, a million a year, he would not—and could not—accept it. His sense of honor is of another order. England has spent almost seventy millions sterling maintaining a family imported from abroad, whose abilities are far below those of thousands in the nation; scarcely a year has gone by without some fresh demand for money. Even their physicians' bills have been sent to the public for payment. No wonder jails are crowded and taxes and poor rates rise. Under such systems we can expect nothing but what has already occurred; reform, whenever it comes, must come from the nation, not the government.
To show that five hundred thousand pounds more than suffices to meet all the expenses of government apart from navies and armies, I add the following estimate for a country the size of England.
First, three hundred fairly elected representatives suffice for every purpose of legislation, and are preferable to a larger number. They may form two or three houses, meet in one as in France, or assemble however a constitution directs.
Because representation is always held to be the most honorable of positions in free countries, its allowance merely covers the expenses representatives incur in that service; it is not a salary for holding office.
If every representative receives an allowance of five hundred pounds a year, with deductions for absence, the expense if all attend for six months each year would be L 75,00
The official departments cannot reasonably exceed the following number, with these salaries:
Three offices at ten thousand pounds each L 30,000
Ten at five thousand pounds each 50,000
Twenty at two thousand pounds each 40,000
Forty at one thousand pounds each 40,000
Two hundred at five hundred pounds each 100,000
Three hundred at two hundred pounds each 60,000
Five hundred at one hundred pounds each 50,000
Seven hundred at seventy-five pounds each 52,500
L497,500
If a nation wishes, it may deduct four percent from all offices and establish one worth twenty thousand a year.
All revenue officers are paid from the money they collect and are therefore excluded from this estimate.
The foregoing is not intended as a precise list of offices, but as a demonstration of the number and scale of salaries five hundred thousand pounds can support. Experience will show that it is impossible to find enough work to justify even this expense. As office business is now conducted, the chiefs in several offices, including the post office and certain exchequer offices, do little more than sign their names three or four times a year; underclerks do all the work.
Taking, then, one million and a half as an adequate peacetime establishment for every honest purpose of government—three hundred thousand pounds more than the peacetime establishment in the profligate and prodigal reign of Charles the Second, although, as already observed, the pay and salaries of army, navy, and revenue officers remain at their levels then—more than six millions of current expenses will be left over. The question is how to use this surplus.
Anyone who has watched how closely trade and taxes are entwined must see that they cannot be suddenly separated.
First. Goods already in stock have already been charged the duty, and no reduction can apply to that stock.
Plain English translation
Mouseia’s complete Plain English edition, made independently and directly from the complete English text of Parts I and II with Paine’s preface, appendix and author’s notes (Conway’s edition, 1894).
The difference between the first four hundred years and the last three is so remarkable that it suggests the character of the English people has changed. Earlier English people could not have been forced by soldiers to pay today's high taxes. Consider also that the pay of the army, navy, and all tax collectors is the same now as it was about a hundred years ago, when taxes were no more than a tenth of today's level. The only way to explain the enormous rise in taxation and spending seems to be waste, corruption, and political scheming.*31
The Revolution of 1688, and still more the Hanover succession, brought a ruinous pattern of scheming in European affairs and a passion for foreign wars and foreign rule. These practices are hidden so thoroughly that no one can account for the expenses. A single entry covers millions. It is impossible to say how high taxes might have risen if the French Revolution had not helped break up this system and end its excuses. We should see that revolution as a welcome way to lower the tax burden in both countries. It matters as much to England as to France. If we use all the opportunities it offers, it deserves to be celebrated just as much in England as in France.
I will begin with the most obvious part of this subject: reducing taxes. Then I will offer proposals about England, France, and America that the current situation seems to support. I mean an alliance among the three countries, for purposes I will explain in due course.
What happened before can happen again. The account I gave earlier of changes in taxation shows that taxes were once cut to a quarter of their former level. Today's circumstances do not allow an equally large cut at once. But they allow us to start on a course that could reach that goal in less time than it took before.
Taxes for the year ending at Michaelmas 1788 were as follows:
Land tax L 1,950,000
Customs 3,789,274
Excise, including old and new malt 6,751,727
Stamps 1,278,214
Other taxes and miscellaneous income 1,803,755
—————-
L15,572,755
Since 1788, more than one million pounds in new taxes have been imposed, apart from the proceeds of lotteries. Taxes have also generally raised more money since then than before. So we can round the total to L17,000,000. (The cost of collecting taxes and the refunds on them, which together come to nearly two million pounds, are paid out of gross receipts. The amount above is the net payment to the treasury.) These seventeen million pounds serve two purposes: paying interest on the National Debt and meeting current yearly expenses. About nine million goes to interest; the remaining nearly eight million goes to current expenses. The million pounds supposedly used to reduce the debt hardly deserves mention: it is like paying with one hand and taking the money back with the other. France was fortunate to own public lands that could pay off its debt and lower its taxes. England has no such lands, so it can lower taxes only by cutting current expenses. As I will show, it can now cut them by four or five million pounds a year. That saving would more than offset the huge cost of the American war. It would come from the same area of spending that caused the problem. Interest on the National Debt is a heavy tax burden. But the debt also keeps money available for use in commerce, which offsets much of that burden. Moreover, for one reason or another, there is less gold and silver in the country than there should be: only twenty million pounds' worth instead of sixty million. Foreign schemes, wars, and territories largely explain the shortage. Eliminating the debt that helps make up for this lack of money would therefore be unjust and bad policy. Current expenses are different: any savings there are a gain. Excess spending may sustain corruption, but unlike debt interest, it does not benefit credit and commerce in return.
The English Government, though not the English nation, is now very likely hostile to the French Revolution. Anything that exposes the scheming of royal courts and cuts their influence by reducing taxes will displease people who live off what they take from the public. As long as they could stir up cries of French scheming, absolute power, Catholicism, and wooden shoes, it was easy to frighten and lure the nation into paying taxes. Those days are over. We can hope deception has gathered its last harvest and that better times lie ahead for both countries and for the world.
Suppose England, France, and America form an alliance for the purposes I will describe later. France and England could then reduce their national expenses. Neither would need the same fleets and armies, and each could reduce its forces ship for ship alongside the other. To do this, though, their governments must follow shared and compatible principles. Trust cannot grow while either side remains hostile, or while one side hides its actions and the other acts openly and honestly.
Given these assumptions, we could use a period when France and England were not enemies as a model for national spending. That would have to be before the Hanover succession and before the Revolution of 1688.*32 The first example from before those dates is the very wasteful and corrupt reign of Charles the Second, when England and France were allies. Choosing such an extravagant period will make today's extravagance look even worse. This is especially true because the pay of the navy, army, and tax collectors has not risen since then.
The peacetime budget then was as follows (see Sir John Sinclair's History of the Revenue):
Navy L 300,000
Army 212,000
Ordnance 40,000
Civil List 462,115
———-
L1,014,115
Parliament, however, set the full yearly peacetime budget at $1,200,000.*33 If we go back to Elizabeth's reign, all taxes together came to only half a million pounds. Yet the nation sees nothing in that period that suggests it lacked importance.
Consider all these factors together: the French Revolution, the prospect of cooperation and shared interests between the two nations, the end of court intrigue on both sides, and advances in our understanding of government. Yearly spending could be brought down to one and a half million pounds:
Navy L 500,000
Army 500,000
Government expenses 500,000
—————
L1,500,000
Even this total is six times what government costs in America. Yet local civil government in England costs the public treasury less than the equivalent part of government in America. By local civil government I mean the work done through quarter sessions, juries, and assizes. That is almost all internal government in England, and the people themselves perform it.
It is time for nations to act reasonably instead of letting rulers ride them like animals for pleasure. Reading the history of kings, you could almost think government meant hunting deer, with every nation paying a huntsman a million a year. People should have enough pride, or enough shame, to blush at being fooled this way. Once they understand their own worth, they will. On issues like this, people often have thoughts they have not yet learned to welcome or share. Held back by something that seems like caution, a person pretends to himself as well as to others. It is striking how quickly that spell can break. Sometimes one bold, plainly spoken thought can make a whole group recognize what it really feels. The same thing happens to entire nations.
The titles given to positions in a civilian government matter very little. As I said earlier, in the ordinary work of government, no president, king, emperor, senator, or anyone else could possibly give a nation services worth more than ten thousand pounds a year. No one should be paid more than the value of his services, and a decent person would not accept more. Public money should be handled with the greatest care and integrity. It comes not just from the wealthy but also from the hard work of laborers and the poor. It is taken even from people suffering from want and misery. Every beggar who walks or dies in the streets has contributed a small share of it.
Suppose the American Congress so completely betrayed its duty and its constituents that it offered General Washington a million pounds a year as president of America. He would not and could not accept it. He has a different sense of honor. England has spent almost seventy million pounds sterling supporting a family brought in from abroad, a family far less capable than thousands of people in the nation. Hardly a year passes without a new demand for money from them. Even their doctors' bills have been sent to the public for payment. It is no wonder that jails are full and taxes and poor-rates rise. Such a system can produce only the results we have already seen. Reform, when it comes, must come from the nation, not the government.
To show that five hundred thousand pounds is more than enough to cover all government costs apart from the navy and army, here is an estimate for any country the size of England.
First, three hundred fairly elected representatives are enough for all legislative business and better than a larger number. They could sit in two or three chambers, meet in one as in France, or follow any other arrangement set by the constitution.
In free countries, serving as a representative is considered the highest honor. Any allowance is meant only to cover representatives' expenses in doing the job, not to pay them for holding office.
If every representative receives an allowance of five hundred pounds
a year, with deductions for missed sessions, and all of them
attend for six months each year, the cost will be L 75,00
The administrative departments cannot reasonably need more
than the following positions, with the stated salaries:
Three positions at ten thousand pounds each L 30,000
Ten at five thousand pounds each 50,000
Twenty at two thousand pounds each 40,000
Forty at one thousand pounds each 40,000
Two hundred at five hundred pounds each 100,000
Three hundred at two hundred pounds each 60,000
Five hundred at one hundred pounds each 50,000
Seven hundred at seventy-five pounds each 52,500
————
L497,500
If a nation wishes, it can take four percent from the pay of all these positions and create one position paying twenty thousand pounds a year.
Tax collectors are paid from the money they collect and are therefore not included in this estimate.
This is not intended as an exact list of positions. It shows how many positions and what rates of pay five hundred thousand pounds can support. Experience would show that there is not enough work to justify even that cost. As government offices now operate, the heads of several departments, including the post office and certain treasury offices, do little more than sign their names three or four times a year. Lower-level clerks do all the work.
One and a half million pounds, then, is enough for all honest purposes of peacetime government. This is three hundred thousand pounds more than the peacetime budget during the extravagant and wasteful reign of Charles the Second. As noted, pay in the army and navy and salaries for tax collectors are still at the same levels as then. More than six million pounds would remain from today's current expenses. The question is what to do with that surplus.
Anyone who has seen how deeply trade and taxes are intertwined must realize we cannot separate them all at once.
First. Goods already in stock have already been taxed. A tax reduction cannot lower the tax on those goods.