Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1866-03-07
DISCRIMINATING TAxEs.

! From the New Orleans tflce Nuifeilt-l
The propriety Of imposing lighter
taxes on the necessaries, than on the
lixuries Of life. has been generally recog-
|pized and admitted by those even against
whom such determinations have been
/ made.
4 THE reason is obvious. 1t Is not from
any considerations Of humanity, or char
! itv, that the burdens of the poor are di-
/ minished by lessening the imp0sts on
] those articles of which they are the chief
! consumers. The poor man owes little
! else % the law and the Government than
I his personal security. The rich man, in
addition 10 the protection Of his person,
/ secures the peaceful possession Of his
wealth. Political economists have main-
tanned that the benefit afforded by the
law 10 the rich man does not increase in
simple proportion 20 the augmentation Of
his property, but in a progressive ratio.
On this principle it has been argued
that the owner of five millions
should contribute TO the support of the
Government more than five times the
amount of the owner Of one million.
Moreover, the value Of capital, whether
fixed or circulating, depends upon the
productiveness of labor; and hence the
more the burdens of the latter are di-
benefit 10 the former.
In the present income tax a double dis
elimination is observed between the rich
and the poor. Incomes under 5000 are
free: those over $500 and under 5000 are
taxed five per cent; and al larger in
comes ten per cent. This discrimination
is founded on the principle we have ad-
duced, but it is too arbitrary 20 be just.
IL is manife-tly unreasonable that while
an income of $500 Is taxed S2f5 per an
mum, one of $1,000 should pay $500. Or,
in other words, that the additi0al income
Of SIGj, should subject the tax payer 70 |
an increased duty Of $3.50, or Sl55 more |
than the addition The law may not /
work precisely this way in practice, but .
il does in principle.
Agreeably TO the bill now pending i'm /
the Federal Congress exemption from
tax is to be extended to ell incomes OF I
less than q 900 and all above that .
amount are equally TO pay 1--WE per cent.
The exemption up TO 81 ,OC0 we regard as
proper. A tax on incomes of less than
81 900 could not be paid by the tax payer
unless by depriving his family OF actual
necessaries of life, which the law does
not contemplate But, If the principle
we have stated be sound the uniformity
of taxation on larger incomes may well
be questioned. To adjust the tax in pro-
port % the benefits derived by the tax
payes- rom the Government, IL may be
that IL should rise by certain
progression with the extent of the i'll
come What the ratio should be under
this principle would be question 20 DE
determined by considerations of neces-
-ity, equity and policy. II, for example,
il were fixed auone-tenth Of one per cent.
4ITs
while 81 900 paid five per cent, $1,000
would paw five and one-tenth per cent,
s, 900 five and two-teuths per cent, So, /
Eo six per cent, so, 900 seven per cent,
so, ,e00 ten per cent, and so on in the !
,ame progression.
The equity of this discrimination
night be defended by a consideration OF
he respective capacity Of the tax payers {
% bear the burden imposed upon them.
tive per cent ON an income Of II, 900 q
would reduce the available means of the I,
AK payer to $3.50, which might be insult Z
icenJ 10 provide his family with the ac- Z
ual necessari-s Of life; whereas a tax Of
i've per cent. on an income of 5000 {
you'd leave the tax payer 81, ,153-which "a
rould not only supply him with all ne 3
but leave a surplus for luxury O
? accumulation. While in the one case b
]
would hardly be felt by the tax payer. +
AssUme for example the ratio supposed 7
( one-teuth Of one per cent increase. .
he income Of 81, 900 would then pay five {.
er cent, or so per anuum, and that OF II
I, 600 five and fouT-tenths Of one per
snt., or $40 per annUm. Is it not a
lanifCst that, even under this progress q
we system, the capacity Of the tax a
aver, who had an income Of 5000 Der II
mum, To bear the burden imposed upon
i'm, would be much greater than THAI Of o
i'm whose tax was only $50, but whose r.,
ic0me WIS reuUced by the tax TO $3.50. d,
Our purpose IN these reflections is not I "a
) tax. We have used it merely 10 illus ii
ate the influence of public opinion I'm v.
.lation TO the income principle of dis
iminaiiJn, which, we contend, should o,
ever be overlooked in adjusting . Ia
.e public burden. Let whisky and "a
andy, and playing cards and lot
rles be never 80 much taxed az
It give the poor man cheap sugar for co
: tea and coffee, for sugar is neces-
~ article, not a mere luxury. Restore &c
e relations between the duties on i'm nj
.rted sugar and the excise on the do Va
este product 10 what they were before m
G war, when there was a protective is
.ty but no excise, and at the same time
iuce the excise 70 the lowest possible tb
int By this means, while the Western Of
rmer would get cheap sugar, and pro- OF
1ti5n the Southern farmer would en-
lie him TO increase his product, 10 aug 81
=nt the national revenue, and extend st,
e Southern market for pork, bacon, Ike
m and other farm produce.