The following essay analyzes the arguments made by the principal academic proponent of income taxation, Columbia University economist E. R. A Seligman, after it was found to be unconstitutional in 1894. Seligman thought that the prevalent theory of just taxation, that it should be based on a natural right to one’s person and property, was wrong. The principal American philosophical proponent of this natural rights-based approach to taxation was the late Brown University philosopher and economist, Francis Wayland. The essay analyzes the flaws in Seligman’s contention that there are no natural rights and, therefore, no natural property rights, so that taxation could not be justified by the benefits received for the protection of such rights. Instead, he claimed taxation should rest upon a person’s financial capacity. Since that capacity would be most accurately measured by net worth, we would have expected Seligman to endorse a proportionately assessed net worth tax (which was commonly used by the states in the nineteenth century). Alternatively, he argued for an income tax progressively assessed. This essay argues that since income is only a portion of financial capacity, his argument fails.

中文翻译：

---

为什么要征收所得税？道德和历史探究

下面的文章分析了所得税的主要学术支持者、哥伦比亚大学经济学家 ER A Seligman 在 1894 年所得税被认定违宪后提出的论点。Seligman 认为，流行的公正税收理论，即它应该基于对人身和财产的自然权利是错误的。这种基于自然权利的税收方法的主要美国哲学支持者是已故布朗大学哲学家和经济学家弗朗西斯·韦兰。本文分析了塞利格曼的论点中的缺陷，即不存在自然权利，因此也不存在自然财产权，因此不能通过保护这些权利而获得的利益来证明征税的合理性。相反，他声称税收应该取决于一个人的财务能力。由于这种能力可以通过净资产最准确地衡量，因此我们预计塞利格曼会支持按比例评估的净资产税（这是十九世纪各州普遍使用的）。或者，他主张累进征收所得税。本文认为，由于收入只是财务能力的一部分，因此他的论点是站不住脚的。