The representative. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1893-1901, 1894-05-23
INCOME TAX.
Why 1t Should BE Pussed-TOm Wat
sons Views.

why II should Be Passed-TOm Wat
sons Views.
An income tax law passed congress July
!, 1862. 1t did not go into effect till 1863
By it's terms all incomes in excess of
5000 and under $4,000 were taxed at 3
per cent, over $4,000 at per cent.
This was surely very moderate.
The tax was collected under the inter-
nal revenue system.
From this source the government COL
!ected $2,741,S57 in 1863
For the fiscal year ending June 80 1864
1t collected $40, 294, 1863
On the third day of March, 1865. the act
was amended SO as to substitute per
cent Tor the 3 per cent on the smaller in
comes, and 10 per cent the per cent
upon the larger ones, commencing with
an income of $1,000.
Under these acts the government col
lected $50, 050,O17.
In 1866 this tax yielded 81, 9s2, 395. In
1867 it yielded $66,014, 429
In 1867 the law was amended. The tax
was diminished in effect one-half, The
amendment also provided that the act
was to expire with the year 1870
In 1868, $41, 455, 500 was the sum collected.
In 1870 it was $34,s91,S57. On July IA, 1870,
the tax was extended one year and re-
duced to 2l2 per cent.
This was repealed by an act which
passed the senate January 25 1871 and
the house on March, 1871.
The yeas and nays were not taken in
the house.
Iaxes already due before the repeal of
the act continued to be collected in 1871.
1872 and 1873 The last We're not in till
1877.
Inc total amount collected under this
very moderate income tax was $346, 9O6 72S.
Does anyone doubt that it would not be
practical to collect enough revenue from
TINS source to run the government?
AMAZINGLY inpraa cd IN,
the hands of the milionaires; profits so
stupendous have accumulated in the hands
OF the Standard Oil magnates, coal barons
railroad kings, sugar trust operators, steel
and iron combners, that a good, heavy tax
on incomes above $10,O0O-the tax growing
heavier as the income was larger-Would be
phenomenal in it's yield.
The reason why such a tax would be bet
ter than any we now have are sufficiently
obvious.
l. 1t would put the burden on the class
the most able to bear it.
=. 1t would put the support of the admin
lstratlon upon those who derive the great
est benefits under the laws.
3. 1t would interest the most powerful
class in the cause of economy. Rich men
get particular when they know they must
foot the bills.
T. 1t would put the pension debt on the
men who got rich off the victories of the
soldiers.
.. 1t would discourage the accumulation
OF enormous fortunes and would afford a.
legal method of checking the growth Of
accumulated wealth.
3. 1t would suppant internal revenue tax
es upon whisky and tobacco-which SUBJ
Jects of taxation should be relegated to the
states.
Z. 1t would give the tax-oppressed peo-
pie all over the land relief from the
crushing burden of indirect, cowardly and
illegal taxes which are wrung from them
In the name of the law for the benefit of
privileged classes.
The nations of Europe recognize the in
come tax
In England it Yields about $50, OOO, 900
annually; in Austria, s12,OOO,OOO; in Italy,
$45, 100000; in Prussia, 10000, OOO.-Tom Wat
son.