New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1864-05-31

In the Congressional discussions on the ques-
ton Of increasing Internal Taxation so as to
produce revenue adequate to the pressing
need, Of the Treasury. the subject OF the tax on
Incomes has very properly received much atten-
ton. All candid persons who have given their
attention TO the question will no doubt concede
tha, tax properly levied, upon Incomes, how
ever unpopular II may be, is an equitable and
lust tax. Without considering whether the
present rates on Incomes are too low or too
high, we submit that the provisions Of law for
levyng the tax are not equitable, for the reason
that the exemptions are not the same in all cases.
1t is, OF course. quite right that a certain amour
of income, suchsum rs Congress may reasonably
suppose TO be necessary for the support OF a
family, should be exempt from taxation. Con-
gress first fixed this sum at 5000, and subse-
qucnily added thereto " the amount actually
paid for rent of dwelling house" Under this
provision, the exemption for rent may be fifty
dollars, one hundred dollars, or five hundred,
or five thousand or nothing at all. This pro-
vision was inserted as an offset to the case of
those taxpayers who reside in their own dwell
lings; while the proper, equitable remedy forthe
inequality which would otherwise exist, was to
have assessed the fair rental of each dwelling
occupied By its owner, as 81 much income to
such owner. The use of dwelling owned By
its occupant is rs substantially income
as If such dwelling were rented,
and income actually received therefrom.
Ii is urged that 1t would be difficult
TO determine the value of the rental. Why
any more difficult than TO estimate the value of
the house itself the value Of II carriage, or any
of the innumerable objects which the Assessor
is required by law TO estimate? The objection
is untenable Common SENSE and common fair
ness dictate that the exemption from taxation
on account Of the support of the taxpayer or his
family should be the same in all cases, and this
equality cannot be attained by any system
which exempts the rent actually paid for resi-
dence, or which fails to tax as income the use of
a residence owned by its occupant. If the
present allowance of 5000 il deemed to be too
small, increase il, though it il almost certain
mat InOft ldiillllrN NunolNl vi itSN IMAM gum
per anmm than receive and expend larger
sum. But the idea of deducting house rent, in
addition TO the otherwise fixed exemption, is
absurd as well as unequal and unjust. The use
of a dwelling is undoubtedly an essential item
OF expense in the support of well-regulated
family; but what reason can Member of Con-
gress, or any other man, urge in favor of ex-
empting rent that would not apply with equal
force TO any other item Of necessary family ex-
penditure'
The Internal Revenue bill, as ii passed the
House of Representatives, contained provision
partially remcdying tho defects and inequalities
here pointed out, by clause limiting the
amount to be deducted for rent To 5000, and
cnacting that persons residing in their own
houses should be assessed for income on the value
of the rental of such houses exceeding 5000;
but the Senate struck out this wholesome pro-
vision. IL is to be hoped that that body may
yet sec the propriety and justice of reconsider
ing its action on this subject.
The aggregate rental of the dwellings of this
city alone is not less than $50, 0O0, 900, the tax
Oh which at present rates would be at least
81, O00 900, and underline proposed new rates over
81, 100000. Simple justice as between diircreat
Taxpayers hnites with the urgent needs Of the