The record-union., 1893-02-06
Old Crank on Taxation.

EDS. RECORD-UNIoN l am not watch
ing our legislators TO note what bills they
may pass, for, aside from the modest
comprehension that 1 possess no political
power to influence legislation either way.
l have great faith in the inherent sense of
right and wrong generally; but from nv
observation l think that reason should be
classed with the physical senses, it seems
| so different in various individuals. 1t
seems to have no power over any of the
passions, yet it is the faculty relied upon
| to demonstrate what is right and wrong
From my observation (Which is not ex-
tensive), the modern tendency of legisla-
ton, instead of being to economic and
make taxation as light as possible on all
| citizens, is to squeeze every cent possible
out of property, to be used by our public
officers perhaps for the good of the coun-
try, and l see in your paper (of this
mornings issue) that this idea is carried
so far that it is now proposed to levy a
! tax on death.
Death is sure to come to all, but am
unable to seewhy the property which any
| man may leave should be subject to an
extra tax because he dies. All of his prop
erty is taxed while he lives, and will be
taxed the same when he is dead, whoever
| gets it, Where is the justice in confiscating
portion of it because he dies? And If
there is such right, why not contiscate
! it all? Perhaps the State can make better
use Of it than the heirs; but | can see no
! better right for the State to levy a tax on
| Inheritance, than there is to levy a tax on
! sales. The property is merely trans
| ferred, and is as much subject to taxation
as it was while the man lived.
Another bill, No. 473, imposes a tax of
per cent per annum upon the net an
nual gains, profits or income OF each per-
| son, firm or corporation owning property
! or doing business in the State; provided
| that such annual net gains, profits or in
come shall exceed the sum of $1,000 in
each year, and shall not exceed the sum
of $4,000. If it exceeds $4,000 and less
| than S20,0 > per cent. income tax shall
! be levied; over $4,000, and less than
| $4,000, Z per cent. per annum; over
$4,000 aud less than $4,000, per cent.
| In excess of S40, 600 an income tax of 10
per cent. shall be levied.
Suppose one man has an income of
| s., 3,005, and another of s., 900. Why should
the State confiscate $50 of the former, and
leave him S2,9l5?
The principle is the same, carry the
! figures where you will.
Again: Suppose the income of COM
pany or firm composed of ten persons
! (mOre or less is $4,000. Why should the
| State confiscate under the name OF tax
| SlGO from each individuals share OF
! s., 200?
| A corporation may have a hundred
stockholders more or less. If a hundred
| hold equal shares, and the profits are S50,-
600, why should the State confiscate 10 per
cent. OF the $500 each of these men should
get?
Recollect that all of the property owned
| by these individuals, firms or, corpora
tions within the State is subject to equal
/ taxation under the Constitution.
Carry the figures where you will the
principle is the same.
Again: a man works steadily fifty
years, and economies in every way to
acquire property which will bring him in
an income to live on in his old age. Why
should the State confiscate under the
gulse OF tax his income, or any portion