Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1870-05-12
From the WashiDgto on Chronicle.
The Income Tax.

! From the washington on Chronicle.
The Income Tax.
a very interesting discussion sprung
lupiu the Hcus some days since in re-
gard to the prJpriety ofmaintaining the
! Income tax. General Schenck furnish
ed the country with some facts ana
/ figures well calculated 80 cnligbten the
people.
There IS q persistent effort made by
certain OF the Eastern Press to render
! this tax unpopular; they stignatize it
/ rs iaquisit0rial and odi0us, and some
take II fog granted that the Government
lean well emit its collection from this
time forward.
! There are few. il any, taxes popular
with those WHO have 10 pay them. Long
/ USAGE renders some kinds less obnoxious
Than Others, ,su h as duties upon imports.
/ The tax upon whisky cigars, and toDac-
co IS accepted as proper, and is born with
/ degree of cheerfuiuess. Until the ne
| Icessitie5 created by our great war debt
demanded its imposition we were eX-
/ empt from an income tax, aud is it not
strange that the new tax should meet
with opposition, and that many should
wish to be relieved from it.and We would
rejoice if the condition Of the Treasury
! permitted its discOnlinuaBce, or that
some other objects Of taxation cOul be
more Just, and at the same time furnish
the needed revenue.
But where shall these neY objects-be
! found An increase Of duties upon
/ foreign products is as bitterly assailed as
| is the income tax.
! BY the proposed new tariff it is ex-
pected that there viii be q falling off in
! The revenue from that source.
viii those who are are opposed tothe
7 income tax teh as from what source we
/ are to derive the amount which would
,pe-i,-t 10 the Treasury by the omission
ttoinpose ti.Gt-CaX
Where VIII we iindRew objects Of tax
! +-s-i-,st iro.l which to collect thirty -four
tinili.oIs fdoiiars per year, and hear no
complaints? II we continue TO meet the
Icurreut expenses of the Government, be
IL ever 50 economically administered,
and pay the interest on our natisnal
Gebr, and reduce that debt in any per-
ceptible amount, the income Tax to US is
Indispensable.
We are approaching specie payments
quite as rapidly as we should desire, and
tie business OF the country is being ac-
communicated With wise reference to
! that state of affairs. The volume of
! business TO be done 70. the succeeding
! few years VIII probably be much less
/ than for the few years past; cur imports
VIII be less, and there will lie a large
falling of in that source pfTevenue.
Can we, then, afford to omit the ir-
come tax?
Is it wise to seriously propose to exon
erate-the surplus wealth Of the country
from taxation? The income tax is
mainly TAX upon the surplus wealth.
| 1t is true that it bears heavily upon
those who have to rely upon small
lsalaries, and We are glad that members
Iof Congress intimate an fatenti0n to
remedy that injustice by eXempting a
larger am0uat from taxation, say 81 500
or s., OJ9 But in y political point of
view il would be impolitic for the Re
publican party to remove u tax from
I those who are taxed because of their
abundance, and able To pay without
Inconvenience, and increase the taxes
Ci those VINO are less able TO pay; for " e
/ assume that the omission 10 collect the
| income tax VIII not raI!eTe the people
Uf that much taxation, but creates a
i Necessity tC collect thiTty-iUur millions
now paid ~ the weal5hiest III the land
from the nIass OF The people who are not
50 able to pay.
| 1.-THE Il peal OF the income tax would
/ relieve tlecaUutry from tae payment
Of thiIty-IJur millions OF dollars we
would say, away with it; but it will not;
! the money must nc mad from some
source, aud IL - WISE statesmanship 10
draw from that source WAiCh will be
4 least injIri0usly affected by it. We
4 know Of 10 other from whence the
Treasury can be replenished that will
be 50 lightly iel6.as Il tax upon the IN
i comes ot the wealthy. The right-mind-
Ell wealthy men do not complain, and
we should not heed the crOakingS OF
! others. sFhen we consider the millions
, OF families IN ihis country who have to
SUPPORT themselves upon less than one
Thousand dollars per year, We may well
i inquire hos the repeal of such a law
would eiIec5 the minds of those people.
Few farmers, mechanics, traders OF
/ laJOresF, are in the receipt of yearly in
comes OF one thousand dollars. They
all have quite as many taxes to pay as
! tley from tpeir small earnings are able
20 pay, and they. would be slow to be-
i ieye t.Iat the surplus wealth of their
more fortunate uelghLors should he re-
\ iieved iron taxation, while theirs, at
4 the sam time, IS 60 be increased. VIII
our Republican friends who clamor Tor
its repeal consider this view of the sub
Iject? In politics, as in war, we should
be slow to do that which the enemy
| wish Us TO do.
Let the tak be omitted, and we shall
likely be reminded in 1872 that Re
publican Congress removed the tax
i upon tAe surplus in the hands of the
wealthy, bat refused 10 relieve the poor
lrOm-the tax on coffee, tea, &c.
Blythe new funding bill bonds viii lie
exempt from all taxes-incOme as well
as munici pals it wise to go .urther in
eXempling the surplus wealth of the
country from taxation?
The Republican party IS on trial, and
aD 10 this time through all The intricate
Land perpleXing questions, it has grandly
.Aet the Just e& pectations of the country.
IDul=L.1us growing ont OF our financial
IpJlicy viii Aenceiorth eugT0ss the at
lteatiOn OF Congress and of the people
i Those officers ia the Administration
) who are most intimately connected with
financial questions are known 60 be in
favor ofan income tax, aL least until our
i iinauU III policy shall become settled.
! their counsel shouid be most carefully
considered. before il is rejected. Such
Questions should now be considered
4 with reference to their discussion ia
4 1872.