The wisdom of man never yet contrived a system of taxation that would operate with perfect equality.

Jackson’s remark underscores a perennial problem in political economy: taxation inevitably distributes burdens unevenly because people’s circumstances, incomes, property, and consumption differ, and because any tax design creates winners and losers. The statement can be read as both a caution against utopian promises of “perfectly fair” taxation and a pragmatic defense of compromise—aiming for rough justice, transparency, and administrability rather than unattainable equality. In Jackson’s political idiom, it also resonates with suspicion of special privileges and complex fiscal schemes: if perfect equality is impossible, lawmakers should be wary of systems that claim neutrality while quietly favoring particular interests.