The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1869-12-14

pie; having nothing in il that can enlist party
zealotry on one side or the other. The
admission of its advocates, that the tax ought
to be transitory, betokens their despair of
defending it on any ground of principle; and
as temporary expedient it can be justified
only by the insuficiency of other sources of
revenue. But, in point of fact the revenue
from other sources is redundant; the current
surplus being sufficient, as is claimed, to
reduce the public debt at the rate of nearly
hundred millions per annum. Its total aboli-
ton is confessedly not question of princi
pie, but only question of time; and what
time can be more opportune for the removal
Of an unjust and odious tax than the earliest
moment when it ceases to be necessary?
We have recently set forth some of the
reasons why an income tax operates more
unequally and oppressively in this country
than it does in Great Britain, showing that
difference of circumstances renders the
British precedent inappGcable to this coun-
try. But even in Great Britain the income
tax is felt to contravene every principle of
equity.
The strength of denuncation with which
Mr.. Bright assailed the income tax of Great
Britain, and his vigorous, almost indignant,
protests against its gross inequality and in
justice, should arrest the zeal of its advocates
in this country, who have little to stand upon
but the British precedent, and who fancy
that the British tax is regarded as equitable.
| If 1t is unjust there, it is, as we took some
| pains to show, hundred-fold more unjust in
new country like the United States The
| Commissioner Of Internal Revenue is the
only officer of our Government who has
undertaken to defend its equity, and as we
| are willing our readers shall see all that can
be said in its favor, we insert his argument
"After all, it is but tax upon the increased wealth
Of the nation; and when 1t is understood that Gov
ernment securities are exempted from taxation and
that the interest on these securities produces large
amount OF the incomes OF tax payers, submit II 1t
will be wise to abolish the income tax long the
directly or indirectly subjected to any considerable
| taxation These observations are intended to apply
to the question whether the income tax shall be
| retained or abolished, and not to the rate of the
tax, or the manner of its assessment and collec-
| ton
1t is discreditable to our Government that
reasoning so flimsy and lnconsequent as this
should be put forth in a public document
Mr.. Delano defends the income tax on the
ground that it is paid by the bondholders
whose property is otherwise exempted from
taxation. For the refutation of this argument
nothing is required but slight knowledge of
arithmetic. The contributions of the bond
holders make but an insignificant fraction of
the proceeds of the income tax. The total
amount of the bonds is about 81, 900, ,000, 000
Secretary Boutwell,, in his annual report, es-
Inmates that from seven hundred to nine hun
Supposing the amount in foreign hands to be
eight hundred Millions there would remain
in this country twelve hundred Millions the
interest on which is subject to the income
tax. The interest on twelve hundred mil
lions at six per cent. is seventy-two millions,
and the income tax of five per cent. on this
interest is only S3,600,00 whereas Mr..
Delano states that the whole income tax col
lected this year will amount to $2G, 900, ,000
1t will thus be seen that the bulk of the
income tax does not fall upon the bond
holders as Mr.. Delano assumes, but upon
: other classes of the community Allowing
for the exemptions and for the fact that the
= ten-forty bonds yield only five per cent
interest, probably not more than three mil
lions of the income tax are collected from
the bondholders, and the other twenty-thret
millions are the most unjust tax ever levied
Mr.. Delano defends it on the ground that i
is tax on ''the increased wealth of indivi
duals from investments. "After all, he says
sit is but tax upon the increased wealth O
the nation If this were true, and all th
, increased wealth of the country contributed
in equal proportions, the tax would be JUST
fable. But it is not true. A large part of i
3 islevied on salaries which are barely sufficien
to meet the current wants of the recipients i
: is not a tax upon their Increased wealth,
= but upon their scanty means of living. Th
e payers of this part of the income tax are N
4 better off at the end of the year than the
i were at the beginning. Instead of being pal
y out of their accumulations, it curtails thei
g ordinary comforts.
# That large part of the inceease of the ns
@ tional wealth which comes with the least e1
d ertion is not touched by the income tax at al
d We refer to the hundreds of millions of do
II lars invested in this country by shrewt
o wealthy men in unimproved real estate, whic
If is constantly rising in value, but yielding n
D Il tangible income as long as it remains unsolC
le There is no class in our country who are S
d rapidly increasing in wealth as the investor
s in such property, and yet they pay no incom
S. tax, while people who make money by the
le activity and industry, and who are the re
e. creators of the increased value of such il
vestments, bear all the burden. NothlI
80 could be more unjust than law which thu
ol exempts accumuations which come witho
O. exertion, and taxes the uncertain profits
le business, and the precarious salaries of inc
l. viduals who have no resource when sickne
i'll or the caprice of employers puts stop
r. their earnings.
ch Moreover, the income tax scarcely touch
nd agriculture, the most extensive and me
ne thriving interest in the country. The rise
he the value of farms is as inaccessible to IL
ID, form of taxation as the enhancement of u
ri improved real estate The food of the far
ta- er's family, raised on his own land, escaI
of entirely, while that large part of other
lal comes which is expended for food pays
me full five per cent. No tax is endurat
en which is distributed with such glaring dis
will gard of equity,
IA AS there is no reason why renewal of &
bril- unjust tax should be made a party questio
ave we would fain hope that it may be permit