Los Angeles herald., 1891-07-29
INCOME AND SUCCESSION TAKES.


A plank in the Ohio Democratic plat
form calls for graded income tax. OF
course this plank will be attacked by
the people Of fixed incomes everywhere.
1t is not to be presumed that any prop
erly graded law taxing incomes would
touch the ordinary incomes of persons
working for moderate salaries. People
who are in receipt OF $4,000 year could
afford to pay the minimum tax; and
those reaching above that, say from
$4,000 upwards, could better afford to
stand an increased rate of taxation than
can the poor homestead owner the annual
levy upon his limited possessions.
The fact is that under our present sys-
tenn OF taxation the poor homestead
owners are the only ones who honestly
pay their taxes. The persons of fixed
and large incomes shirk their just taxes,
and pay nothing they can possibly
evade. They are the ones who have large
balances in their bank accounts, which
balances appear on the 1st of March
in the currency and untaxable assets of
the financial institutions. One of the
great objections urged to an income tax
is the fact that it would be evaded by
many, and that whilst the unscrupulous
would not hesitate to swear their in
comes down, the persons Of conscience
would pay the full amount. This is
true now. 1t is true of ordinary taxes.
The persons who have no scruples about
false swearing get off with paying less
taxes than is rightfully due from
them. 1t is said that when
the income tax was in force during the
war, it was notoriously evaded by the
men who received the largest incomes.
That is true; but some of them were
brought up with round turn, and paid
dearly afterwards for their moral OBJ
liquity. We recollect in this state a
great mining operator who was con-
fronted with express receipts for bullion
which made his oaths look so much
like deliberate perjuries that he stood a
very large fine, besides the back taxes,
rather than let the government proceed
to extremities against him. The
man who has an income of $10,-
600 and upwards can well afford
to pay tax upon it, and nine
times out of ten it is only through an
income tax that he can be reached at all,
and be made to contribute his just share
towards the support of government.
There are far worse taxes than those
upon incomes.
The United States government will
soon be pushed to its wits ends to raise
revenue for its support. The Republican
policy has not only greatly lessened it's
sources for obtaining public revenue,
but has at the same time greatly in
creased the amount of it's current ex-
penditures. If that party should un-
fortunately continue in power, the high
protective tariff policy will be SO secure-
ly fastened upon the country, that re-
venue from importations will go on de-
creasing in so great ratio that some
other mode of taxation will have to be
devised to meet the emergencies OF the
treasury. Why are not sue
cessions to large estates prop
er subject of taxation Who
can better afford to pay good round
tax to the government than the person
who mesinto large estate by success
sion or inheritance. He has never
earned 1.-THE has never struggled to
create it, but has fallen heir to it by
accident of birth or through the affec-
tions growing out of propinquity or
friendship. Why should such an estate
as that of the late Mrs. Hopkins-Searles
not be made to contribute handsomely
to the support of government when it
passes into new hands? 1t has cost the
country immense expenditures, directly
and indirectly, to protect such an
estate. It has burthenad the dock
cts OF the courts of the country
with costly suits it has compelled the
government to stand ready with all the
machinery of protection, even with the
army as we'll as the civil power, to Sc
| cure the owner in its peaceable enjoy
ment. About seventy per cent. of all
the taxes paid by, the ordinary citizen
goes to meet the expenses incurred by
governm ,nt--federal and state--to secure
millionaires in the enjoyment of
their colossal fortunes. Why
therefore, should not these huge
fortunes be made to pay substantial toll
when they pass by the way of Styx from
the possession of the original owners to
those who succeed them by inheritance :?
If Mrs. Hopkins-Searles leaves $7O, ,O0O,-
600, why should not the public get back
a portion at least of the money it
has spent in protecting her in the enjoy
ment OF that vast sum while she was
alive?