Hans Mayer, Schlußwort: Prof. Dr. Mayer (Wien) (1926)

Hans Mayer’s closing address in conference proceedings responds to a discussion of tax shifting, particularly the contributions of Weyermann, Lotz, and Mann. Its central claim is that an adequate theory of tax incidence must distinguish economic situations concealed beneath legal tax categories and combine deductive analysis with quantitative evidence. The address moves from methodological clarification through examples of differentiated incidence to a proposal for comparative statistical research, concluding with the role of psychological motives.

Mayer first corrects a possible misunderstanding: his account of economists’ dependence on deduction describes the current scarcity of empirical material, not an injunction to pursue exclusively deductive research. Deduction remains productive when its premises correspond to economic reality. Conventional classifications such as land, business, and corporate taxes, however, do not themselves provide sufficiently differentiated premises.

Wenn wir behaupten, die Grundsteuer sei überwälzbar oder nicht, so ist beides falsch, wenn wir von der Grundsteuer als solcher reden.

English translation: If we assert that the land tax can be shifted, or that it cannot, both are false when we speak of the land tax as such.

The land tax illustrates the conceptual move. A recipient of differential rent and a marginal producer may be liable under the same legal heading, yet their positions in price formation differ fundamentally. Mayer argues that a tax on marginal producers can be shifted under appropriate elasticity conditions, whereas a differential-rent recipient cannot independently alter the market price. Similar distinctions apply to business and corporate taxation. His criticism therefore reaches beyond terminology: uniform assessment principles and tariffs can transfer burdens to people whom legislators never intended to tax.

Mayer shares Lotz’s dissatisfaction with the evidence available but expects improved statistical techniques and international data to make empirical inquiry more effective. Invoking Marshall’s contrast between nineteenth-century qualitative analysis and twentieth-century quantitative analysis, he distinguishes identifying causal factors from measuring their strength. His discussion of consumption reinforces the warning against reasoning from labels: demand for luxury goods may prove rigid despite their apparent dispensability. Some consumers continue buying tobacco, alcoholic beverages, or automobiles after tax-induced price increases. Such responses vary across populations and countries and must be established empirically.

In den seltensten Fällen können wir davon sprechen, daß die Steuer zur Gänze überwälzt wird. In den meisten Fällen ist es so, daß der eine einen Teil trägt und der andere einen Teil, und es zersplittert sich das oft noch auf viele andere.

English translation: Only in the rarest cases can we speak of the tax being shifted in its entirety. In most cases it is so that the one bears a part and the other a part, and often this is further splintered among many others.

This emphasis on divided burdens turns tax shifting from a binary classification into a problem of degree. Qualitative theory can identify mechanisms, but it cannot by itself determine how much of a tax each participant ultimately bears.

In dieser Frage der quantitativen Analyse kann die Deduktion allein absolut nichts leisten.

English translation: In this question of quantitative analysis, deduction alone can accomplish absolutely nothing.

Mayer proposes comparing price statistics after a tax increase with consumption or sales statistics rather than drawing conclusions from prices alone. Cooperation among statistical institutions across countries could permit comparisons under different price and income conditions. With sufficiently extensive observations, he hopes other influences on prices will counterbalance one another, allowing the price-raising effect of tax shifting to be isolated. He presents this empirical programme as complementary to continued, careful deduction.

The final movement broadens the evidentiary task to include psychological motives. Replacing professions of belief with knowledge requires attention not only to production conditions and capital composition but also to the motives driving economic responses. For certain taxes, especially Anfallsteuern, Mayer invokes preservation of an accustomed standard of living rather than treating prospective gain or utility as the universal explanation. He closes by noting agreement with Herkner on research relevant to improving tax systems. The address’s significance lies in this conjunction of conceptual differentiation, quantitative measurement, and behavioural explanation: sound tax policy requires knowing not merely who is formally assessed, but through which mechanisms—and to what extent—the burden moves.