Wyandot County Republican. [volume] (Upper Sandusky, Ohio) 1869-1903, 1871-02-16

We could only afford to throw off one
third OF the taxes upon the necessaries
of life, but we have relieved the income
tax from over two thirds at least of its
burdens. Now we are called upon to re-
wise and supervise our work i'm this par
ticular, and sweep away this tax with
out considering the effect upon other
classes of citizens and other people who,
like us, are compelled to pay taxes.
! Mr.. President, when L come to COLI
! trast the income tax with other taxes,
while concede that there are objections
to the income taX-and will state them
presently-I must say that there are
other taxes which the national Govern
mcnt is now levying that are far more
| oppressive than the income tax. lou
take the tax, for instance. on the neces-
saries of life, sugar, tea, and coffee What
| objection can be made to the income tax
that does not apply to this tax, except
one, and that is, that the income tax is,
from its nature, tax ofespionage, while
the tax on tea, coffee, and sugar is not
| But the tax on tea, coffee, and sugar
| takes from the little lump OF sugar dealt
out in charity. or to penury, as well as
it does from the confections of the rich.
! There is no argument of injustice or
| hardship that can be mentioned against
| the income tax to be compared I'D the
tax upon tea, coffee, and sugar. Take,
| also, the tax on salt, an article of prime
necessity; and yet we levy on that arti-
Gle $2,0OO,00 So upon lumber. So OH
| the stamps, which reach every man :
| business and every mans transactions,
the sale OF land. every ordinary business
transaction of life, and yet nobody pro-
poses to repeal the stamp tax. That
yields about the sum the income
tax does, and little more.
Take the tax on gas; take the special
tax on beer shops. We collect $l,70O,OUU
by Il special tax on the sale of spirits
and beer, and the collection of that, as 1
will show you. hereafter, costs about one
third as much as the collection OF the in
come tax, yielding seven times the
amount.
Now, when you are compelled to levy
such taxes as these, is it hard, is it uu-
just that the wealthier men of our COM
munity should ut least be required TO
pay twice as much as the drinkers of
beer, as much as the people who drink
tea, one third of the tax levied upon
sugar, as much as that which is levied
on coffee! Is there something so inhe-
rently vicious in the income tax that at
ter we have gone over this whole sub
ject, and gone to the extreme limit of
reduction, that We dared go and take off
$S2.0U0.UoO we should now at the closing
slider our action and single out this taN X
! alone, leaving undisturbed the Other
taxes L have mentioned? l do not think
so. With all the desire | have had to
approach this subject without being in
fluenced by my previous views, with ey-
cry desire TO remove complaint, L can-
not say. as Senator, that it is adviss-
BILE or just, polite or right, TO relieve
rev com mparatifeiy who pay this income
tax wnit" we are compelled to lev ,"
taxes of this character. And, sir, when
this question was debated year after year
in the British Parliament. where every
man was the representative of property,
the income tax, after suspension OF
twenty years, was restored, and it has
been maintained from that time to this
and will be maintained until the Eng
lish people can repeal all the taxes up
on all the prime necessities of life.
Many objections have been made
against the income tax, and lave been
made to-day by my friend from Penn
sylvania, and have been made in pre-
vious debates. 1 have not very often
sought to answer them. because thought
they would answer themselves. But let
us look at them. think 1 have grouped
them fairly; but if | omit any objection
that has been made to the income tax l
am willing to pause and consider it.
The first objection is that it author
ICES espionage into mans business.
Well, sir, so do all taxes. Your whisky
tax authorizes the most searching eSpi-
onage. and assumes that fraud is ineyit-
able in the production of whisky, All.
but the answer is.a man who makes
whisky must be judged by very differ
ent rule from L man who has large in
come. Why? Whisky is a law ful trade
although whisky produces a great deal
of misery; and yet, no one complains
that we send guager, detective, a
spy to watch the whisky distiller; but
if we send L man of reasonable presence
to inquire into a rich mans income that
is espionage in the one case, but not in
the other!
But. sir, we are told that this is an
odious and unpopular tax. | never
knew tax that was not odious and un-
popular with the people who paid it. L
think if the Senator from PENNSYLVANIA
would go into some places in Philadel-
phia he would find that the whisky tax,
which is so popular with us, is unpopu-
lar there. know that in Brooklyn pco-
pie have organized armed resistance to
the collection Of the whisky tax, have
combined and confederateu together,
and we have had to call out nine hun
dred troops of the United States to 20
there and enforce the whisky tax. Those
people denounce it as unjust and une-
quail. We do not think so. Sir, if You
would only levy taxes which in the
opinion of every body, or even of ma
jOrity, are not unequal and unjust, you
would have such i tax law IS l have
never yet seen. no. .. =
When you come 20 examine this in
come tax you tii,d that it applies. it is
true, to only about sixty thousand peo-
pie. but those sixty thousand people do
not pay their proper share ofother taxes.
Why? Can Il Itch man with IN overflow
ing revenue consume more sugar or
coffee or tea, or drink more beer or
whisky, or chew more tobacco than a
poor man? You tax tobacco at the same
rate per pound, whether it is tobacco
for the wealthiest or for the poorest
Here lisa case of inequality admitted by
all and so all taxes produce inequality;
but when in system of taxation you
are compelled to reach out to many OBJ
jects you must endeavor to e4ualize
your general result by reaching all
sources of taxation and do the best you
can to equaliLe in that way.
Therefore, when it is complained that
the tax on an article consumed is unjust
upon the poor, because the poor have to
consume greater proportion of their
income in its purchase than the rich. we
answer that to countervail or meet that
We have levied reasonable income tax
upon such incomes rs are above the
| wants and neceSsaries of life. That is
the only answer, and it is Il complete
answer; because, if you leave your sys-1
TEN OF taxation to rest solely upon con-
sumption, without any tax upon prop
erty or income, yoY do make an unequal
and unjust systt m.
But the Senator from Pennsylvania
seems to follow in the line OF the news
paper argument, that this is very eX-
pensive tax to collect. Sir. the income
tax. from its very nature, is the cheap
est tax levied. except ore.
The Senator from Pennsylvania him
self said that it was collected mainly in
twenty-thiee districts; that all the in
come tax collected outside twenty three
| districts did not amount to a considera-
| bile sum- IL il collected in districts