Race and Tax Policy: the Case of the Chinese Poll Tax
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Race and Tax Policy: The Case of the Chinese Poll Tax Sue Yong and Rob Vosslamber Abstract The Chinese poll tax was introduced in English-speaking countries, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States, during the nineteenth century. Though this tax was justified on social and economic grounds, it is largely a race-based tax as it was targeted at Chinese immigrants. This article provides a historical analysis of the New Zealand and Californian (American) poll tax. It also evaluates the relationship between the poll tax and immigration. Given the widespread Chinese poll tax in these countries, this evaluation has international significance, and demonstrates the central role of taxes in the formation and maintenance of civic identity. It also has contemporary implications given the extensive number of racially diverse immigrants, including the Chinese, who have migrated and are migrating to Western developed nations. I. INTRODUCTION Poll taxes on Chinese immigrants were common in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and California (America) in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The Chinese were drawn to these countries in large numbers due to the gold rush and the construction of railway lines for Canada and America. Their significant presence in the English-speaking countries aroused hostility in the European population; this hostility eventually translated into discriminatory legislation, an example of which was the poll tax. The poll tax was imposed concurrently with other anti-Chinese legislation to stem Chinese immigration.1 The tax was Senior Lecturer, Accounting Department, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. Email: [email protected]. (contacting author) Senior Lecturer, Accounting and Information Systems Department, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand. Email: [email protected] 1 See, for example, the Canadian Chinese Immigration Act (1885), the US Chinese Exclusion Act (1882), and the Chinese Immigration Act 1881 (NZ). Journal of Australian Taxation - 2018 – Volume 20 – Art 6 – Yong and Vosslamber levied on Chinese as they were considered unassimilable with Western culture,2 and to protect the economic interests of white workers.3 Since Chinese immigration could not be prohibited due to international treaties with China, the poll tax was designed to deter the Chinese from arriving in the first place and proved to be effective at least in the short term. Despite the tax, the Chinese continued to arrive at these English-speaking countries due to pull and push factors. Firstly, they were attracted to these countries because of the potential wealth from gold-mining and railway construction. Secondly, they were forced to work elsewhere due to the severe economic recession in China at that time.4 Some studies have discussed the experiences of Chinese immigrants in New Zealand and America, highlighting the prejudice they experienced.5 As a means of restricting entry, and a significant economic cost to the payer, the poll tax provides an epitome of this prejudice. The poll tax provides a salient example of taxation policy establishing and reinforcing social norms. The race-based poll tax generated public finance for the government; it is claimed that an estimated £308,000 was collected between 1882 and 1930 from the New Zealand poll tax, with the highest amount of £83,500 collected in 1920.6 Since ‘tax is very much a social and institutional practice,’7 it is necessary to investigate what actually happens in the real world when tax rules and regulations are put into play, indicating the need for engagement with underlying moral and philosophical issues related to tax which are often assumed rather than justified.8 Although this article predominantly focuses on New Zealand, with some reference made to California, the poll tax was not unique to New Zealand. Poll tax was introduced in some British colonies and America during the nineteenth century. The issues raised in this paper are important because they provide insights into the essential institutions of immigration and tax policy. New Zealand—like Australia, Canada, and America—is notable for the vast majority of its citizens being immigrants or descendants of 2 G Scholefield and T Hall, ‘Asiatic Immigration in New Zealand: Its history and legislation’ in Norman MacKenzie (ed), The Legal Status of Aliens in Pacific countries: An International Survey of Law and Practice concerning Immigration, Naturalization and Deportation of Aliens and Their Legal Status and Disabilities (Oxford University Press, 1937) 262. 3 Emily Ryo, 'Through the Back Door: Applying Theories of Legal Compliance to Illegal Immigration During the Chinese Exclusion Era' (2006) 31 Law and Social Inquiry 109. 4 Ibid. 5 See, for example, Manying Ip, Unfolding History, Evolving Identity: The Chinese in New Zealand (Auckland University Press, 2003) and Isabella Black, ‘American Labour and Chinese Immigration’ (1963) 25 Past & Present 59. 6 Nigel Murphy, The Poll-Tax in New Zealand: A Research Paper (New Zealand Chinese Association (Inc), 1996) 65. 7 Lynne Oats, ‘Tax as a Social and Institutional Practice’ in Lynne Oats (ed) Taxation: A Fieldwork Research Handbook (Routledge, 2012) 5. 8 Liam Murphy and Thomas Nagel, The Myth of Ownership: Taxes and Justice (Oxford University Press, 2002). 148 Journal of Australian Taxation - 2018 – Volume 20 – Art 6 – Yong and Vosslamber immigrants.9 Through a careful examination of the immigration or exclusion process, one can see how the Chinese are treated in New Zealand and America. These findings then can be used for further historical and theoretical analysis of how tax policies can influence immigration. This article focuses on the New Zealand and Californian poll taxes. The New Zealand and Californian poll taxes were introduced in 1881 and 1852 respectively.10 The New Zealand poll tax was very similar to that of Australia and Canada as it required royal assent from Britain given that they were British colonies. This, however, does not apply to California as it was not part of the British Empire. California also imposed other taxes on Chinese and therefore is considered worthy of some discussion. However, this article does not compare the poll taxes of New Zealand and America; rather, the aim is to discuss the objectives of the poll tax and its relation to Chinese immigration. The article proceeds as follows: The next section discusses the context of and background to the poll tax. Section three considers the New Zealand poll tax, followed by the Californian poll tax in section four. Section five discusses the justification for taxing the Chinese. This is followed by the discussion and analysis in section six. The article then concludes in the final section. II. CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND Somerfield et al. defined taxation as ‘any non-penal yet compulsory transfer of resources from the private to the public sector, levied without receipt of a specific benefit of equal value and on the basis of predetermined criteria, in order to accomplish some of a nation’s economic and social objectives’.11 Hence, taxation is a sacrifice made by individuals for a collective benefit. Besides raising revenue for the government, taxation is used as a tool to achieve economic and social objectives. Some taxes are not intended to raise revenue but to modify behaviour and address social ills, such as the imposition of environmental taxes to address environmental concerns and taxes on alcohol and tobacco to address health issues.12 Such taxes reflect the shifting norms of the society in which they are enacted (or repealed). The poll tax is a per person capitation or head tax, usually levied at a fixed rate per person. Poll taxes are generally considered unfair; even Adam Smith lamented that ‘[c]apitation 9 Statistics New Zealand, Ethnic Group (Total Responses) by Age Group and Sex, for the Census Usually Resident Population Count, 2001, 2006, and 2013 Censuses (RC, TA) (31 January 2018) <http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE8021#>. 10 Jerome Hart, The Chinese American Experience: 1857-1892 (16 April 2018) <http://immigrants.harpweek.com/ChineseAmericans/2KeyIssues/CaliforniaAnti.htm>. 11 Ray Sommerfeld, Silvia Madeo and Valerie Milliron, An Introduction to Taxation 1991 (Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1991) 4. 12 Peter Lorenzi, ‘Sin Taxes’ (2004) 41 Social Science and Public Policy 59. 149 Journal of Australian Taxation - 2018 – Volume 20 – Art 6 – Yong and Vosslamber taxes, if it is attempted to proportion them to the fortune or revenue of each contributor, become altogether arbitrary and uncertain, and if it is attempted to render them certain and not arbitrary, become altogether unequal.’13 Poll taxes are frequently considered a sign of oppression, levied by an overlord on a subject people. Since they are unrelated to a taxpayer’s ability to pay, poll taxes are usually unpopular, and have often led to civil disobedience.14 Poll tax has been used as a means of social and racial discrimination. From the time of Emperor Vespasian (r. 69–79 AD), taxes levied on the Jews (Judengeld) in various societies discriminated against that race.15 Similarly, the Qur’an refers to the Jizyah,16 levied by Moslem rulers on those who had not converted to Islam, as a sign of their subjection and an incentive to convert.17 The discriminatory intention of a poll tax may even be disguised by levying a whole population while targeting a particular group. In certain states in the United States (US), the payment of a poll tax was a prerequisite for voting. Since few African Americans could pay, the tax was an effective means of disenfranchisement.18 III. NEW ZEALAND IMMIGRATION AND THE CHINESE POLL TAX New Zealand, being part of the British Empire, deliberately encouraged immigration from Britain, Germany, and Northern Europe during the nineteenth century when there was a demand for labour. Due to British colonialism, it was common for British migrants to settle in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.