‘The rich . . . should give to such an extent that it will hurt’: ‘Conscription of Wealth’ and Political Modernism in the Parliamentary Debate on the 1917 Income War Tax
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The parliamentary debates on the Income War Tax in the summer of 1917 were marked by fierce criticisms from Liberal members who argued that the tax measure fell short of the ideal of ‘conscription of wealth’ that had been in wide circulation in the months leading up to the debate. Scholars have repeatedly pointed out that ‘conscription of wealth’ rhetoric, which attempted to link the unfair sacrifices of the war effort to the need for income taxation, and revealed a rapidly polarizing political climate at the end of the war, was the key inspiration for the introduction of the Income War Tax. However, the use of similar rhetoric by parliamentarians, and the call for ‘radical’ taxation across political differences, suggests that something else – a shared desire for a modernist ‘break from the past’ – was at work in the debate. Les débats parlementaires sur la Loi de l’impôt de guerre sur le revenu, à l’été 1917, ont été marqués par la critique féroce des députés libéraux selon qui la mesure fiscale n’atteignait pas l’idéal, abondamment relayé dans les mois qui ont précédé le débat, d’une « conscription de la richesse ». Les chercheurs ont régulièrement fait valoir que cette rhétorique de la « conscription de la richesse », qui tenta d’associer les sacrifices injustes faits au nom de l’effort de guerre au besoin d’avoir un impôt sur le revenu et qui révéla une polarisation croissante du champ politique à la fin de la guerre, fut la principale source d’inspiration derrière l’introduction de la Loi de l’impôt de guerre sur le revenu. Toutefois, l’emploi d’une rhétorique semblable par les parlementaires et les demandes pour un régime d’imposition « radical » par-delà les lignes de parti suggèrent qu’autre chose – un désir commun de rompre avec le passé dans l’esprit du modernisme – fut à l’œuvre dans le débat.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".