The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state…. The necessaries of life occasion the great expence of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expence of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be any thing very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expence, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Book V, chapter 2, Of the Sources of the General or Public Revenue of the Society.
17 comments
October 20, 2008 at 8:36 pm
ari
Adam Smith? Pinko.
October 20, 2008 at 8:57 pm
andrew
Adam Smith is as awesome in the blue states as he is in the red.
October 20, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Ahistoricality
He’s a good ol’ fashioned librul!
October 20, 2008 at 9:31 pm
urbino
I have it firmly in my head, and have had for many a long year, that the patron saint of private property rights, John Locke, also said it was necessary that everyone in a society own property.
Damned if a quick perusal of my old copy of the 2 treatises turned it up, though. I probably made it up.
October 20, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Velvet Howler › Blog Archive › Spread the Wealth
[...] EoTAW.) [...]
October 20, 2008 at 9:47 pm
professordarkheart
Adam Smith…is that a Muslim name?
October 21, 2008 at 3:16 am
Martin G.
You mean Adam HUSSEIN Smith? The liberal intellectual academic elitist?
October 21, 2008 at 7:37 am
@Stephen
Take note that Smith advocates taxing the rent of an expensive house as a “vanity and a luxury”. I can certainly agree with that. Choose more modest living and then you can contribute your wealth in any way that you see fit.
October 21, 2008 at 9:23 am
luke
It would be a more effective quote if it came from Ludwig Von Mises or Milton Friedman. But interesting none the less.
October 21, 2008 at 9:40 am
Hemlock
Smith also takes an analytical foray into the political economy of standing armies. His diachronic approach entails an intellectual history replete with bodies-in-space-time, as well as the discipline-order facilitated by a laissez-faire reorganization of economic and political institutions. Check this out:
http://www.adamsmith.org/smith/won-b5-c1-pt-1-ss2.htm
With the election ahead and the role of the U.S. armed forces in the public mind, HUSSEIN Smith’s work is fertile ground for discusson. Plus standing armies and space-time is cool.
October 21, 2008 at 12:19 pm
another weblog » Blog Archive » Adam Smith on progressive taxation
[...] Thanks, Ziggy for pointing me to the original post in The Edge of the American West. [...]
October 21, 2008 at 12:52 pm
urbino
Adam Hussein Smith-Ayers, Baron of Acorn.
October 21, 2008 at 2:14 pm
ben wolfson
I have it firmly in my head, and have had for many a long year, that the patron saint of private property rights, John Locke, also said it was necessary that everyone in a society own property.
No, those in a society who don’t hold property are still subject to its laws. They just get no input into their creation. As far as I can recall, Locke has no problem with there being scads of propertyless in a society.
October 21, 2008 at 2:16 pm
andrew
Jefferson proposed granting land to people who didn’t have any in order to increase the propertied population.
October 21, 2008 at 2:30 pm
ari
Locke was just fine with inequality. Or so I said in my lecture last Thursday. I hope I wasn’t wrong.
October 21, 2008 at 4:00 pm
urbino
Yes, Jefferson I knew about. And the bits about only the propertied having a vote. It’s just the bit about universal property ownership (though, yes, ari, not equal) I can’t track down — or entirely shake.
Perplexing, is what it is.
October 21, 2008 at 4:55 pm
rosmar
Locke was fine with inequality of property, except that he said that 1) no one should waste any property, as it was all originally a gift of God, and 2) those taking common property needed to make sure there was “enough and as good” left for others. Which, if we wanted to push it, we could make into a pretty big loophole. But I don’t think he would have wanted us to.