St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-02-27

believe also have been made without
| reflection. | admit that no system of
taxation will be found in practice per-
| feet. The best we can do is to approx
mate to our ideas. The question is will
| 1T be more difficult to enforce this than
| the tax Oil personally under our pres
| ntlaW: ana | think no one who is un-
biased will answer this in the affirm
alive.
As has been above shown the present
law as to taxation of personal property
is not only not enforced but practically
uncomfortable. The means of evading
the present law are much more numer-
Gus than any that could be resorted to
eyade all income tax. The owner of
personal property which should be
listed for taxation may secrete if, hold
it in the name of another, exchange it
nominaIly, or temporarily for nOn-aS-
SeSSable government securities. 1t is
notorious fact that this is not infreq-
uently done by corporations and wealthy
individuals to avoid taxation. There
are very numerous ways in which as
SeSsment of invisible property is eyaded.
But man can only by point blank
perjury avoid true statement of his
income, for every one knows or can
know nearly what his income is. And
ii the law is properly drawn few would
dare to run the risk of conviction for
perjury and incarceration in the state
prison to avoid the payment of just
tax. And one conviction under such a
law would end all such wicked attempts
at defrauding the treasury and the Deo-
pie. One such conviction would surely
extinguish that ''ineXtinguishable
mirth" with which the p. p. says the
owner of accumulated capital will treat
an income tax.
Another 0DiectOr says such tax
would be oppressive to the laboring and
poorer class, while it would permit the
more wealthy class to escape taxation.
The contrary is the truth. This is a
law to compel, and that would compel
the rich to bear their Just share
of the burdens of government. which
as has been shown they have not as
rule done under the present law. Sen
ator Leavitt's bill, against which the
cutlery is made, provides for a conStitu-
tional amendment authorizing "a tax
upon INCOMES ABOVE A FIXED AND
SPECIFIED SUM. Such tax
above such exempted sum may be uni
form or it NAY BE GRADED OR PRO-
GRESsIvE." That is, the legislatures are
not only permitted but REQUIRED to ex-
empt given amount of income from
any taxation whatever, and are author
lied to augment the RATE with the net
increase Of the income above such eX-
empted sum. so that by no possibility
could such law bear hardly or at all
on the poorer classes. This is illustrated
by the report of the United States con-
sui general in Switzerland Oh the work
ing of the graded income tax in that Re-
public. There the incomes are divided
into six classes-those derived from sal
aries are the lowest. those from interest,
stocks. bonds and other such secur-
tiles the higheSt-and the greater
the income the higher the rate
Of the tax imposed Oh it. In
1881 persons who paid income taxes.
In the highest class those who derived
incomes from interest, stocks. bonds,
etc. there were 535. and they paid four
times as much as the 6,S62 in the other
five classes. Just so it would be under
the Leavitt amendment. While. per-
hapS, all incomes in excess of $1,000 and
none below would be taxed. yet Oh the
smaller incomes above that sum the
rate would be so low that the bulk of
the tax would come from incomes say
above $4,000. This tax would reach
that class of men who, under the pres
emit system, have learned how to escape
taxation almost entirely and, the 2. z.
to the contrary notWith standing, it is
just that class that are in such tremOr
least this amendment should be sub
united to the people and be approved
by them.
But it is said the wants Of our treas
ury do not require this tax. True, if we
continue to subject tie mass of the peo-
pie to excessive taxation in order that
the wealth Of the country may nearly
escape, there is no need of a change
but think [ have shown that unless
we are willing that this condition should
continue, a change of systems is abso
lureiy demanded.
The question here involved. plainly
stated, is, shall the wealth of the coun-
try be longer permitted to escape its
fair share of the burdens of government,
thus unjustly increasing the burdens of
the poorer classes? THOMAS WILSON.
WinOna Feb 25 1891