The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1893-11-24
AN INCOME rAx.

able 20 an income tar. OF course this
proposition for an income tar Is Southern
born and bred. is bid for PopuIist votes
and Is a paipable evasion Of the Chicago
platform. When the Chicago tariff plank
Was fitted TO the platform there was no
talk about the substitution Of the income
tar for tariff duties a. . means of raising
revenue. The trainers Of the platform de-
clared against the protective tariff as ''un-
constitutional" and favored the substitu-
ton Of tariff for revenue only for the
American system of protection; that Is.
the substitution Of tariff duties for reve-
nue. only for duties which provide protec-
ton ~ well as revenue.
liz the Democracy we're really In earnest,
. tariff for revenue only would furnish
money enough to support the government
without containing "a shred or a vestige
of unconstitutional protection" as Wat
serson phrases II. By levying revenue
taxes on sugar. coffee. tea. spice, cocoa,
cork, raw silk, furs. etc, on bananas.
dates. cocoanuts, etc. the Democracy can
raise over $Is2 .O00, 900, which would be
for the public needs. II necessary, tariff
duties could be imposed on tobacco and
spirits. and tbs internal revenue taxes on
whisky and beer could be increased. But
while under tariff for revenue only
the Democracy can do all this.
they dare not keep the pledge of
their platform. because they know that
the repeal of the protective tariff aAd the
substitution of tariff for revenue only
would heavily tax the poor mans break
fast table and would at the same time
compel employers TO either close their
doors or cut down wages to the level Of
foreign labor. Not only would the work
ingman find the necessities of his break
fast table higher priced, but he would
have lower wages and thus less money to
furnish his breakfast table.
No wonder the Democracy pretend.
therefore. that tariff for revenue only
VIII not produce money enough to sup
port the government and that perforce
they must levy an income tar and leave a
good deal of Unconstitutional" protec-
ton on the statute book. The truth is
that il the Democracy kept the pledge of
the Chicago platform and repealed the
Mckinley tariff tariff for revenue only,
together with the internal revenue taxa
ton, would produce ample revenue, but
the Democracy dare not keep their
pledge, because they know that taxed
sugar, tea and coffee. together with lower
wages, would make tho workingmen re-
volt. Hence the pledge Of the Chicago
platform 10 violated and an income tar 10
impending.
The South will like il, because there are
comparatively few persons with 5000 in
comes in that section. and the average
Southern voter would be pleased to see
Northern men of enterprise and wealth
sweated to pay the taxes; tho Populists
would like an income tax, for they de-
ciared in favor of its imposition in their
national platform last year. The income
tax was war tax aud was unpopular;
was deemed inquisitorial and obnoxious.
1t Is In line with the Populist theory that
rich men are robbers and that private
wealth is public calamity. Senator Mills,
of Texas, urged q graduated income tax in
his speech at Minneapolis in October. 1890.
Congressman Springer advocates Ii. and
great masses OF Democrats in the West,
Southwest aud South would favor 1t be-
cause fits burden would fall on the Eastern
states.
An income tax is a complete evasion of
the pledge of the Chicago platform, for an
income tax has no relation whatever to a
tariff for protection or tariff for revenue.
In its previous imposition 1t was peculiarly
and solely war tax, a special and excep-
tional lmpost. excused only by the great
emergency. Il was always odious and
was tolerated only because of the necessi-
ties of the struggle for national existence.
like the issue of gresubacks and the draft.
Ii the theory of tariff for revenue only
ennnciated In the Chicago platform is
right, that platform demands taxed sugar,
tea and coffee. An income tax Is practi-
eally a tine inflicted upon thrift and enter
prise; it is class legislation, discriminate
ing tax. A per cent tax on all incomes
over 5000 each would reach great multi
tude of individuals. There were $1,000
paying such tax in 1867, and with more
than double the population and over four
times the wealth in the country. the num-
Der now would be from two to four times
as large. Ii has already been suggested by
| one Democratic journal that any tax on
incomes of less than si0.oo each would
probably reach so large body OF men as 10
prove disastrous to the party imposing H.
Ii incomes are to be taxed let them all
| contribute a fair share. for under no other
condition can tax on incomes be jus.i-
fed. since the frs. Law OF all equitable
taxation Is that il shalt be without dis
elimination - that il shall be uniform.
The Philsdelphia Ledger covers this poin,
when il says:
IAN income tax levied only upon a
single class. and thar class largely aistiu-
gulshed foE It's achievements IN bGlidinx
| up the wealth. power aud digaity Of the
nation. and especially for providing in
ceEaes TO the millions 20 whom IL gives
employment. - = tax which only tue mOs;
forbiddlng spirit Of socialism can defend
in a country like This, the government Of
which IS OF all tae people. by ali the peo-
Pc aud tor All she peopse."
fAe theory Of the income tax is that if a
man made q hstie more money than his
neishboF during the year. his sasacity and
industry were compelled 10 pay penalty.
wh.le shs ne!ghboE received premium Tor
TIE lack Of those qualities without which
progress is Impossible"