The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1893-06-26
THE HEE.
A TAN UPON

A TAN UPON INCOMES.
The re-establishment OF O tax upon
incomes for the support Of our govern
ment has not been discussed very gen.
orally because it is understood that the
two very important matters of a change
in silver legislation and q revision Of the
tariff will be first disposed Of by con-
gress. II the democratic policy Of ad-
iusting the tariff on q basis OF honest
taxation is carried out, it may become
necessary to find another and a more
equitable means for raising revenue.
The proposal of ar income tax is there
fore attracting new attention. although
it has long been regarded by political
economists and many leaders in congress
as o pre-eminently fair method Of taxa
tion.
A bill to provide for this system will
be introduced in the next congress and
it is understood, will receive the sup
port Of Senators Worries, Harris, Vest,
Vance and Jones, OF the senate finance
committee, and of such leaders in the
house as McMillin and Wilson. Speaker
Crisp, like Brer Rabbit, of his state, is
"layin' low" these days In his expressions
ON public questions because he wants a
reelection, but he is said to be favor
able to an income tax bill il drawn on
the right lines. The president has ex-
pressed no views but is giving special
study to the subject, for the question Of
taxation has occupied his mind pretty
constantly during his career in the
White house.
There are many excellent reasons for
advocating this tax and there are seri-
GUS objections. 1t is argued in favor
that it is the best method devised Of
making the rich man share the burdens
Of the government. An income is &C
tual evidence Of wealth, because it
shows in money what wealth produces.
A tax on incomes would then divide the
weight, plating the heavier part on the
ones best able to bear it. Then again,
as we have often observed right here in
Helena, there is a large class of wealthy
men who draw handsome incomes and
yet are able to escape the property tax
by many ingenious forms. There are
men in this city who draw large rev.
enues from mortgages and Investments
and yet who give up nothing for the
support of the state or local government.
The poorer classes, whose property is
easily traoeable, carry the weight.
The opponents Of the tax say that it
is far more difficult to collect, is a tax
on brains and intelligence and is in
quisitorial. Undoubtedly it would be
difficult to collect, but seemingly not
more SO than a property tax. Prof.
Richard T. Ely points out as an illustra-
ton that a man may W a %promissory
note which may or may not be worth
anything. That he does not know, but
il he derives an income from it he has
tangible evidence of value. He receives
something from property and should
pay for the support of public %institu-
tions in proportion to his receipts. BY
filing the note for record the amount of
tax could be easily ascertained and col
lected. 1t is certain, however, that the
Door people could not get away from the
tax. Clerks and salaried officers who do
not own taxable property now would be
compelled to pay a tax on the amount
of salary drawn, while it is probable that
forms for eyading the tax would be de-
vised by the wealthy.
The argument, however, that an in
come tax would be moro difficult to col
lect Is not tenable. There was an il
come tax in the United States between
the years 1862 and 1871, when a rate of
three per cent. was charged on incomes
over $500. In 1866 it was raised to five
per cent. or incomes between 5000 and
$1,000 and 10 per cent. on all in excess.
During this period of nine years the
enormous sum of S3J0,000,0 600 was raised
by this system alone. 1t would be much
easier to raise such q revenue now, be-
cause it is easier to trace an income
and under more prosperous conditions
there is less temptation to avoid the
tax.
The only two states having a genera
income tax are Virginia and Massachu
setts, the latter state employing Il sys
tenn whereby taxes are placed on in
ome from annuitiea. and 60 much o
the income from q profession or TRADE as
exceeds the sum of $4,000, but it is alst
provided that no income shall be taxed
which is derived from property subjec
to taxation. AS these states have thu
property tax the income from the othe.
system is comparatively of small &c
count, the revenue in Virginia from thi
source amounting to only $4,000 a year
The difficulties in collecting it, however
have never been regarded as argument
against the justice Of the tax nor hav'
they been greater than in the COLLECTION
Of property tax. Another argumen
against it is that the government woult
be obliged to employ q force ten times
greater and thus add to tie already