Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1893-09-02
sATURDAY, SEPTEMBER Q. 1893.
ApIncome Tax-Platforms.


zion in Virginia declared in favor of the
passage Of a law levying Federal in
come tsx-this tax TO DO a graduated
tax, and the percentage to be increased
as the income grows larger.
Tho probability is that no tax al all
would Ice laid upon incomes of S., 0O0
nnlundcr. There is this difference to be
noted between the taxation OF income
Of 5000 and upwards and the exemp-
lion Of incomes of $1,000 and under,
ihat in the one case the salaries OF
members of Congress would be taxed
and in the other those salaries would be
left untaxed. Nevertheless, inasmuch
as most OF the members Of Congress
have some income besides their salaries,
Il Law taxing incomes would probably
be felt by majority Of the members,
aud such law would not, therefore, be
likely to commend itself 10 their favor,
anless they had strong reasons for ad-
v0catjng it.
Cpngressmen are not more inclined to
tax themselves than are members of q
State legislature or other men. Especi-
ally is an income tax an obi
Gus tax in the estimation OF
men of largo incomes Although it is
not one whit more inquisitorial than are
existing laws for taxing bonds, stocks
end personal property of all kinds, and
Requires 10 oaths more scrutinizing, yet
il seems to have become an accepted
theory that an income tax is more search
9ng than any otLec tax.
It may be set down az certain that an
Income tax vii be evaded in every pos
sible manner by men OF elastic con-
sciences, and for this reason such tax
viii always be particularly offensive in
the eyes OF men OF tender consciences.
Yet, notwithstanding the hateful nature
OF the income tax, and the difficulty OF
enforcing 1t, the Federal Government
collected in one year more than S1O, O0O,-
600 OF revenue under the law taxing in
comes. The men of large incomes,
however, soon showed that they vera
men of large influence. and Congress
made haste to relieve them of the tax in
question, although, in order to raise
sufficient revenue for governmental pur-
poses, that body was obliged to con-
tinue, and has continued, even down to
the present time, the tax upon manu-
featured tobacco and other articles
which the poor man uses.
The New York "Sun" says that an in
come tax is unknown TO the national
Democratic platform. True, but If it is
not known to that platform it is certainly
known to the last platform of the Dem
ocrats of Virginia, who declared in their
recent State Convention loudly and
9efiantly for such tax. Is such plat
orm to be whistled down the wind, or
3 it to be recognized as binding upon
no Democrats "a a party?
The Petersburg Index-Appeal" cuts
Nose at once from the Virginia platform,
I'D avows its opposition to tax which
lecessitates an impairment scrutiny OF
the business of the private citizen,
though, as we have said, existing laws
authorize as impertinent scrutiny into
The private business of the citizens as
could any law taxing incomes.
We recently had occasion to discuss
with some OF our Virginia and North
Carolina contemporaries the question
how long a platform binds the party
which constructs il. Some. il not most,
OF those papers took the ground that
the platform adopted last year at
Chicago would be binding until the
Democratic National Convention should
have made new platform. Do they
still hold that opinion? Ii they do,
do they also hold that the recent Yir-
GINA Democratic State Convention
was as much bound by the failure
of the Democratic National Con-
vention 10 declare for an income
tax as it was by any affirmative
notion of the National Convention?
Tor il Democratic State Convention
can add to a national platform. it would
BEEN that it were an easy matter for
State Conventions to override the
national platform, and each local body
make its own creed. Virginia Demo
Gratis might thus be free to support an
ineome-tax law whilst New York Demo-
Gratis were bound TO oppose it.
These arc matters which will come
home to the Democratic speakers in
Virginia as soon as they take the stump.