The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1891-03-26
IS TIA "BIG BLUNDER7r

ture in reference to the income
tar. 1t is claimed that every
poor laborer (by repeating the
81 900 exemption will be forced
to pay a heavy and burdensome
iucome tax on his daily wages.
Some papers believing this to
be so, have honestly regretted
it, others have ridiculed the
Legislature for its "bungling"
ignorance, while still others,
though claiming that it would
ruin the poor man, yet have
gloated with pleasure over hia
ruin, because it was done by a
farmers or Alliance Legisla-
tnre. When the essence of lit
tleness is in a man it will show
itself on such occasions. But
all this is a bug hear, scare
crow, a much ado-about moth
ing. 1t is the misfortune OF hu-
mainly to suffer more from i'm
aginary evils than from real
ones. Then let us be sensible
and quietly await the coming
Of the terrible calamity (thatis
to ruin the poor to suffer it, and
thereby We will not suffer it sll.
But let Us suppose that the
Legislature had done what they
are claiming it did and raising
so much fuss over, how would
it have worked? 1t would have
been a tax Of une-half OF one
per cent. on all your incomes.
That would mean that q man
who worked for fifty cents a
day would have to pay ONE
fourth Of a cent Of it in taxes,
that Is for four days work, for
which he would get $500, he
would owe only one cent taxes.
Now that is terrible isn't it?
Yes it would ruin the poor man
TO pay that! But let us see, the
Legislature did not even do that.
In the Machinery Act, where
the property that is tosbe listed
for taxation is classified (Sec
17) class 8, which refers to the
income tao, reads as follows:
"The net income Of the party
the twelve months next preced-
ing the first day Of June in the
current year with a statement
OF the source or sources from
which it is derived"
So then we see that it is only
the net income, the clear profits,
what is left Of our earnings Of
ter we defray the expenses OF
living, ETC.. that is to be taxed
Let us See how that will work
A man who works for fifty cents
q day, and lays up only ter
cents of it, after paying the ex.
pense of food. clothing, etc.
pays an income tax on the tel
cents only, which would be one
twentieth OF q cent day, tina
is it would be only one cent OF
twenty days work. The maj
who worked for fifty cents /
day and it took all the fifty cent
to live OH, he would pay no in
come tax at all, for he has n,
net income. But the Legislator
did not do even that bad(?) LIE
US see what is the exact word
of that part of the law that wa
repealed that has raised such ;
fuss. The laws will soon b
published, and when they ar
get the Revenue Act and rea
Section 5 Of Schedule A. Nov
the following 'oas the last ser
tence of THAT section and ar
the words stricken out:
"The Taxpayer, in returnin
his salary or fees, shall be allow
ed to deduct one thousand do
lars as necessary expenses fo
conducting his business or &c
support of his family"
So the exemption is take
from which Of the taxpayers
IT is the man who receives
salary, or is an officer paid b
fees. So these are the men g.
fected and not the laborer, an
the papers that have had S
much to say about this matte
should have given the facts.
We are frank To cay, noweve
that we do not favor even tn
change, a. slight as it is, and
it had come up before the LIE,
islature at any other time hi
at the close of the session, whe
there was such a rush of bus
ness and no time for discussio
1t would not, in our opinio