投资 · 西方古典
大卫·李嘉图：政治经济学及赋税原理·摘录 289
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
If the tax "took away half, or even three-fourths of the net produce of the land," and the price of produce did not rise, how could those farmers obtain the usual profits of stock who paid very moderate rents, having that quality of land which required a much larger proportion of labour to obtain a given result, than land of a more fertile quality? If the whole rent were remitted, they would still obtain lower profits than those in other trades, and would therefore not continue to cultivate their land, unless they could raise the price of its produce. If the tax fell on the farmers, there would be fewer farmers disposed to hire farms; if it fell on the landlord, many farms would not be let at all, for they would afford no rent. But from what fund would those pay the tax who produce corn without paying any rent? It is quite clear that the tax must fall on the consumer. How would such land, as M. Say describes in the following passage, pay a tax of one-half or three-fourths of its produce?
出处：
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33310
定位：Excerpt 289 · 核对日期：2026-10-19 · 核验：短摘录
白话
如果对土地净产出征收重税（比如拿走一半甚至四分之三），而农产品价格又不涨，那么那些租金很低、土地贫瘠、需要更多劳动才能获得同样收成的农民，怎么可能获得通常的利润？即使全部免租，他们的利润仍低于其他行业，除非提高农产品价格，否则他们不会继续耕种。如果税由农民承担，愿意租地的人就会减少；如果税由地主承担，许多土地就租不出去，因为收不到租金。那么，那些不交租金生产谷物的农民，用什么钱来交税？很明显，税必须由消费者承担。像萨伊描述的那种土地，怎么能支付一半或四分之三产出的税呢？
上下文
李嘉图在《政治经济学及赋税原理》中讨论税收归宿，反驳萨伊关于土地税的观点，强调税负最终落在消费者身上。
今日一问
如果对农产品征税，你认为最终是谁在买单？为什么？
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