投资 · 西方古典
大卫·李嘉图：政治经济学及赋税原理·摘录 272
大卫·李嘉图《政治经济学及赋税原理》· On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation · 投资
Suppose the just share of the taxes of a rich consumer to be 100_l._, and that he would pay it directly, if the tax were laid on income, on wine, or on any other luxury, he would suffer no injury if by the taxation of necessaries, he should be only called upon for the payment of 25_l._, as far as his own consumption of necessaries, and that of his family was concerned, but should be required to repeat this tax three times, by paying an additional price for other commodities to remunerate the labourers, or their employers, for the tax which they have been called upon to advance. Even in that case the reasoning is inconclusive: for if there be no more paid than what is required by Government; of what importance can it be to the rich consumer, whether he pay the tax directly, by paying an increased price for an object of luxury, or indirectly, by paying an increased price for the necessaries and other commodities he consumes? If more be not paid by the people, than what is received by Government, the rich consumer will only pay his equitable share; if more is paid, Adam Smith should have stated by whom it is received.
出处：
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33310
定位：Excerpt 272 · 核对日期：2026-10-19 · 核验：短摘录
白话
假设一个富有的消费者应缴的税是100镑，如果直接对收入、葡萄酒或奢侈品征税，他直接付清就完了。但如果改为对必需品征税，他为自己和家人消费必需品只直接付25镑，却要因为其他商品涨价、补偿劳动者垫付的税，而再付三次，总共还是接近100镑。李嘉图说，即便如此，斯密的推理也不成立：只要人们支付的总数不超过政府收到的，富人无论直接付还是间接付，都只是承担公平份额；如果支付超过政府所得，斯密就该说明多出的部分被谁拿走了。
上下文
李嘉图在赋税转嫁讨论中，用具体数字反驳斯密对重复征税的批评。
今日一问
当你为一件商品付税时，你是否清楚自己实际承担了多少，以及多付的部分流向了谁？
公版作品；原文逐字取自 Project Gutenberg，仅摘录段落并附全书链接。
你的邮箱
只用于发送原典。不发广告，不卖名单。
本文本为公版；底本与原文链接见上。 版权