The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1866-06-01
United States by persons residing without the
United States and not citizens thereof.

Mr.. Pike said,-
This is matter of considerable Importance.
The chairman of the committee states that the
change proposed in this bill lessons the reve-
nue. Sl7,OOOO00. The amendment proposes
an exemption OF incomes up to 81 ,Ooo; otnsr-
wise it is re-enactment OF the OLD Jaw. Inc
question arises as to the proprety OF assessing
an income tax offive per cent on one amount,
and tax Of ten per cent on larger income:
OF course it is only upon the net income, and
tax OF ten per cent upon net income Is not
hill. Now. if we give away by this provision
in the bill as it stands seventeen millions Of
revenue, we must look elsewhere to supply the
deficiency. Ii we retain the seventeen MIL
lions of tax we may relieve many small and
weak manufactures of the country. Every
laboring man in the country pays a tax upon
what he eats, drinks, and wears. And until
we come to the point of relieving the great
body Of people in the country from onerous
taxes upon every days consumption it is
question whether or not the men who are
able to pay should not pay this increased pro-
portion OF their income to the General Gov
eminent.
have examined the English law from which
this income tax is derived, and find that for
several years the system in that country was
ten per cent. on large incomes, seven and a
half on more moderate incomes and five per
cent on the smaller, not divided precisely as
we divide them, but by different kinds of prop
erty. They have always pursued the system
OF apportloning taxes upon property and in
come. In one instance specific tax was laid
| on those who kept servants, commencing with
one pound on one servant, and increasing un-
| til the men who had eleven servants paid six
pounds ON each, thus recognizing the principle
| that the man of larger means should pay an
! increased tax in proportion to his means. That
| is principle recognized by the bill of the
| Committee OF Ways and Means when they ex-
empt men of moderate income, up to 81 900,
from taxation altogether. And it is carrying
out the same idea when you have apportioned
this from five to ten per cent. The principle
is also recognized in the taxation of gas COM
panies, where the tax ranges from five cents
ON thousand feet to ten, fifteen, and twenty
five per cent, in proportion to the amount
produced. 1t is fair principle of taxation and
one that sound political economy should rec
ognize, because the aim always should be to
lay taxes on that portion of the community
that can most easily bear them.
do not know that l am personally inter-
ested in the matter, but the great mass of
those who are particularly interested know
would very cheerfully pay this additional sum,
for have not yet heard heard of any remon-
STRANGE from any gentleman whose tax is more
thans five per cent. according to the existing
law. No one of this class has ever sent re-
quest to this Congress to be relieved from tax
alton, and if we wait until that patriotic class
of men shall ask to be relieved from their bur-
| den, / apprehend we will have to wait great
while. On the other hand, we do have petit
| tiOns from struggling manufacturers coming
to us from all quarters of the land, asking for
relief. Now, we all desire to relieve all the
processes by which wealth is created. We all
desire to relieve, as much as possible, the la
Dor of the country from taxation, because by
doing so we produce the best general result
1t is for this reason that / hope the House will
follow the English example, and for few
years to come retain this tax of ten per cent.
Here the hammer fell.
To the allusion to the English precedent,
Mr.. Morrill,, chairman of the Committee of
Ways and Means, replied that English distinc-
tons of rank are unknown in America and
that the discrimination proposed by Mr.. Pixies
amendment is unjust and undemocratic. Mr..
Pike rejoined,-
have one word to say in reply to the gen
tleman from Vermont, Mr.. MORRILL, 1 cited
the example of England in this matter of in
come tax. l did it because British legislation
has always been of conservative character
with regard to property, and no man can be
accused OF demagoguism or of pandering I'M
duly to the popular taste who follows the con-
sentative example of British legislation. The
chairman of the Commute of WAYS and Means
replies to me that they have rank there, that
| they have lords and commons, queen and
| dukes, barons and knights. Now, if the in
come tax under British legislation was assess
| ed in proportion to rank, the argument would
| be good one, but as he well knows, some of
these lords and barons are as poor as church
| mice; they are entirely barren of income, as
the gentleman from Iowa {Mr. Wilson] sug-
gests, llanghter;l and consequently the reply
made by the distinguished chairman of the
Commute OF Ways and Means is entirely NAL
a propos. @
Mr.. Morrill, replied that in point of fact, the
income tax in England though formerly pre-
senting different rates, is now uniofrm. He
said still further, that he felt no particular in
terest in the question. He did not intend to
take any part in debating this question, but
let the House take its own course, only wish
ing to keep himself right on the record. He
had been from the first opposed to the princi-
pie of the tax. The particular effect of it is
to harrasss men of great enterprise in the
country. 1t will have the effect, too, of crea-
ting absenteeism. When men have acquired
a large fortune they will be very apt to 60 else
where to expend it.
Ehe debate was continued by other speak
ers, but without adding any new points of i'm
portance. Mr.. Pixies amendment was finally
adopted by vote of 81 yeas to "a nays.