Emil Lederer · 1912
Emil Lederer’s short review examines the Hansabund’s memorandum on the public-law burdens of commerce, trade, and industry. It distinguishes a potentially valuable comparison of urban and agricultural taxation from a misleading measurement of burdens on individual enterprises. Lederer first states the memorandum’s advocacy objective:
Die Ergebnisse dieser Erhebung sollen die Ueberlastung von Gewerbe und Industrie durch öffentlich-rechtliche Lasten gegenüber der Landwirtschaft dartun, und beweisen, daß die Art der Verteilung in Deutschland «die immer schwerere Bürde der öffentlichen Lasten fast ausschließlich den gewerblichen Ständen auferlegt».
English translation: The results of this inquiry are intended to demonstrate the overburdening of trade and industry by public-law charges as compared with agriculture, and to prove that the manner of distribution in Germany "imposes the ever heavier burden of the public charges almost exclusively upon the commercial and industrial estates".
The memorandum attributes 87% of Reich tax payments to industry, commerce, and trade, against 7.35% to agriculture; its corresponding estimates for federal-state taxation in 1909 are approximately 83% and 17%. Lederer notes that the non-agricultural figures include payments by workers, salaried employees, and the liberal professions. These aggregates therefore describe a broader population than the enterprises whose burdens the memorandum seeks to establish.
His central objection concerns the denominator used to measure those burdens. Following employers’ associations, the memorandum calculates taxes and social charges—including workers’ contributions—as a percentage of net profit. Lederer rejects this ratio as uninformative about actual burdens and proposes a different basis:
Der einzige Modul, die Bedeutung der öffentl. rechtl. Belastung festzustellen, wäre die Berechnung des Anteils dieser «Lasten» vom Wert der Gesamtproduktion; denn sie bildet ja einen Teil der Produktionskosten, erscheint im Preise und es ist vom Standpunkt des kalkulierenden Produzenten nur die Relation zum Gesamtproduktwert von Interesse, nicht die Relation zum Reingewinn, der ja das Resultat sehr verschiedenartiger Faktoren ist.
English translation: The only measure for ascertaining the significance of the public-law burden would be the calculation of the share of these "burdens" in the value of total production; for that burden forms a part of the costs of production, appears in the price, and from the standpoint of the calculating producer only the relation to the total value of the product is of interest, not the relation to net profit, which is after all the result of very diverse factors.
The conceptual move is from profit comparisons to production-cost accounting: public charges enter costs and prices, whereas net profit reflects many heterogeneous influences. The memorandum’s admission that insufficient data prevented comparison with gross profit does not rescue its published ratios. Lederer thus preserves the possible value of comparing town and country while denying explanatory value to the enterprise-level coefficients. He closes by noting the memorandum’s concise account of German taxes, fees, industrial administrative law, and labour law. The review’s significance lies in this separation of useful descriptive material from an interest group’s statistically unsupported inference.
This work was divided into 1 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 1 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian