Delaware gazette. [volume] (Delaware, Ohio) 1855-1886, 1871-03-03
THE INCOME TAX.
Speech of Hon. John Beatty, OF Ohio,
Delivered i'm the House OF Represen-
tattves, February, 1871.


Mr. BEATTY. Mr.. Speaker, the
vote of the 9th instant on the motion tC
take up and consider the bill to abolish
the tax on incomes indicates, I fear, q
disposition on the part of many mem
bers to succumb to the persistent clamol
of few selfish men, regardless of the
welfare and wishes of the great body oil
the people. 1t discloses the fact that q
determined and immediate effort will be
made to legislate still further in the in.
terest of capital and the capitalist, and
against productive industry and the la
boring masses of the country, by shift
ing, or endeavoring to shift, the burden
of taxation from those who are well able
to bear it to the shoulders of those who
are least able to do SO. -
1t is true, MIR. Speaker, that the in
come tax is new to US, that it was born
of the war but undertake to say it IS
reasonable and just, founded upon a
principle recognized as correct by all
political economists. We have, | ven
ture to say, no law on our statute-bOoks
for the collection of revenue so fair, so
equitable, and in all respects so unob-
jectionable as the one we are now asked
to repeal. The Secretary of the Treas
ury advises against the abolition of this
tax the people do not ask it; the de-
mand comes from the bankers, tine
owners of great railroads, the Wander
bits, Stewards, and Astors of the coun-
try, who count their gains by millions.
The splendid abilities of these men
challenge our admiration, and the con-
temptation of their wonderful success
may very properly afford US pleasure,
but they are not therefore entitled to any
exemption from taxation at the expense
of the less fortunate citizen nor should
their petitions receive any more attention
from us than those of the same number
of our humblest people.
It is estimated that the receipts of the
Government, under the external and in
ternal revenue laws, for the year ending
June 80, 1872, will be over three hun
dred millions. Who will pay this vast
sum Two hundred and eighty-seven
millions will be paid by the consumers.
Who are these consumers? Thirty
eight and half million people, includ-
ing the infant and centenarian, the hum
BILE laborer and the millionaire, the man
whose income scarcely suffices for his
family and the man whose annual reve-
nue. amounts to millions, and whose
property stretches across a dozen States.
By what rule, either human or divine
or by what maxim of political economy
are you authorized to say that the man
who owns but his humble cottage shall
pay as much toward the support of the
Government as the man whose income
is sufficient for a hundred families
There may be precedent. but venture
TO say there is no established principle
to Justify such proposition. The bare
statement of it suggests its utter unrea-
sonableness.
Adam Smith tells us that
1.-THE subjects of every State ought to con-
tribute toward the support OF the Govern
ment, as nearly as possible in proportion
to their respective abilities; that is, In pro
portion to the revenue which they respt @
lively enjoy under the pr0tecs on OF the
1t may be said that the wealthy do
pay more than the poor; that they pur-
chase more articles of luxury on which
the higher duties are levied. This
admit is the theory upon which our rev.
enue laws are constructed; this is the
argument we use in attempting to justi-
fy them before the people; but this
apprehend is not practically true. Cot
fee, tea, sugar, salt, iron, coal, whisky,
tobacco, beer, and ale, from which the
greater portion of our revenue is derived,
are used as generally and as largely by
the poor as the rich. You may answer
that the poor are not compelled to con-
sumo whisky, tobacco, beer, and ale.
l reply neither are the rich compelled to
use them, nor to buy dutiable articles of
luxury. You say it is, however, a fact
that the rich do buy them. / reply, it is
also true that the poor consume them to
an equal extent; that the amount of tax
paid by the rich man on his wine and
brandy is fully equaled by the tax the
poor man pays n'his beer and whisky.
Neither is compelled to pay this tax, but
it is nevertheless unfortunately true that
both do pay it; and so long as this fact
remains patent to every one who will
take the trouble to consult the official
reports you cannot throw the whole bur-
den of taxation on the consumer without
utterly disregarding that just principle
which. in the language of DR.. Wayland,
requires that
"Individuals should pay I'm proportion TO
their property that rs, in proportion To the
amount of protection which they receive
from the Government"
This principle governs in the every
day business of the world, and no man