The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1883-07-26
THE TAX PROBLEM.

The New \ ork Times, one OF the
very ablest of all the great Republi-
can papers, long ago saw the hand
writing on the wall, and has been per-
sistently warning Republicans
that, unless they listen to the popular
demand for decreased taxation, their
party must meet the determined op-
position of the outraged masses. 1t
thus ably presents the tax problem !:
Our enormous surplus revenue was
one of the most powerful arguments
by which the proposition to reduce
taxation was supported before the
people and in the forty-seventh con
gress. There were two kinds of taxes
to which the knife could be applied
the internal taxes, which yielded
SAG, 10000 in the fiscal year 1882, and
the customs taxes viii ;h yielded $780,
10000. The representatives of heav-
lily protected industries and the advo-
Gates of a system of high protection
taxes should be reduced, and at first
they proposed that all, or nearly all,
of the internal taxes should be abol-
ished, knowing that their abolition
would necessarily preserve the exist
ing high rates of taxes on imports.
The result of the discussion was re-
duction of internal taxes amounting,
it was said, to about $45,OOO,OOO, and a
so called revision of tariff rates, which,
it was said, would cut off about $780,
100000 of the taxes received from
that source, although it is now ad-
mitted that the tariff reduction may
be very small. The surplus in 1882
was $145, 100000, and the actual sur
plus for the year just ended, as shown
by treasury figures, was about S133,-
100000. There will be a surplus in
the current year, but no one can tell
how large it will be. If the pension
payments shall not exceed those of
last year, and if the reduction of inter-
nal and customs taxes shall amount
to 100000, the surplus may not
exceed $70,OO00OO, of which about
$40.O00,O0O will be required for the
sinking fund. Itmay reach 100000
600.
The surplus continues, however, to
be an argument In support of a re-
duction of taxes, because it is regard
ed by many sensible persons as proof
that the taxes are still to heavy.
Why, they ask, should the govern
ment raise more by taxation than is
needed for it's current expenses and
the gradual eXtinguiShment of the
public debt, which is provided by the
requirements of the sinking fund?
Once more the advocate of high pro-
lection find the surplus d stumbling
block, and are seeking to destroy its
force as a persistent argument in
favor of lower t&es. They know
that the next reduction will not be
made in the taxes upon liquor and
tobacco, but must be made in the
rates of impost duties, if made at all.
What shall be done with this trouble
some surpius2
This is the question that Mr.. Whar-
ton Barker and Prof. Thompson, of
Pennsylvania, have undertaken to
answer. avowedly for the purpose of
maintaining high protective duties,
by suggesting distribution of the
surplus among the states. Anything
to get it out of the field of vision, and
thereby to remove one of the greatest
arguments against the system that
they upheld. Is this proposition fair
to the American people, who pay the
taxes and create tbs surplus? Is it
not true that by means OF such dis
tribution those persons who have
already received very substantial ben
eft from taxation would be paid a
second time
If the money yielded by taxation
were collected fairly and evenly from
every person in proportion to his
hKT fri.
button with the same fairness, there
would be no injustice, but the absurd
ity of such proceeding would be
plain to the dpllest intellect. Il paid
my tax" citizen might say, land it
has come back to me, bpt why was it
necessary to collect il at all and to
pay for the cost of collecting itf The
money was not needed, and the cost
OF collecting and returning comes
out of my pocket. Why not reduce
taxation and avoid such foolish and
extravaganza proceeding
If the money is not collected fairly
and evenly, but is yielded by taxes
which are laid not only to pay gov
eminent expenses, but also to protect
the business enterprises of compare
tiyely small number of citizens, and
make those e terprises profitable, an
other citizen receiving money in the
distribution may say: "This is part
of the money taken from me by the
tax, but not all of it, for have paid
additional tax in buying goods, the
cost of which to me has been raised
by taxation; and my neighbor, who
has grown rich under the protection
of government tax, nov receives in
the distribution an additional pre-
MUM in proportion to the amount OF
property which taxation has enabled
him to accumulate"
The surplus is great fact. and so
far as it exceeds the requirements of
the sinking fund it will be regarded by
a great many persons as absolute
proof that taxes are too high. Can
any method of distribution be devised
by which each taxpayer shall receive
a fair return for his contribution? A
distribution among the states in pro-
portion to population does not seem
to meet the demands of fairness. An
equitable reduction of tax rates is the
fairest, easiest and chea pest method of
reducing the surplus.