The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1894-04-10

ton, House taxation and the states being pro-
should exhaust that field before intrenchins
Let Let me not be rnisundsrstood. Not one dol,
lar e tariff taxation should he imposed except
ment, economically adminlstered; but what
ever those needs are. the necessary revenues
ton, and that alone. save and except the taxes
upon liquors, oleomarRarine. and tobacco. to
and v Which Tor obyioas reasons need not be dis:
sSeh policy is I. reasonably consistent one.
testify unfair to the States to diversity Federal
taxation. II IL now condensed. simpli1ed. and
practically exclusive. and should remain so.
1T DUPLICATES TAXATION.
A Federal income tax involves multiple tax
alton in several stated where state Income
taxes already exist This bill also Proposes o;,,
State sws in New YorS and many other stsss
s sbsndSn sSph tsHso
SppTsssivs tsxsilon., The duplication Of taxes
The, threadbars argument I. urged that
wealth escapes taxation and that 1t can best be
income tax. Let those States where wealth IL
believed to be ineufllciently taxed reach that
wealth through State income taxes or any
other methods which their ingenuity can suR-
and Sae e T
apply the means within their power 70 equal-
lie. diminish. or render more equitable their
the assistance OF the general Government to
State and local taxation rather than Federal
taxation comprises the principal burden OF
our taxpayers, and to each state 10 conceded
the right to frame and execute lie own tax
laws. whereby IL can compel the wealth within
its own borders to contribute whatever share
taxation it may determine In its discretion
This il ali that any State can reasonably ask.
Certainly no State can consi>tcntly demand
that Its oTn prerogstiyes shnI De enGrSscf ts
general Government In order that the states
own wealth may not escape taxation.
FEDERAL VERSUS STATE AND LOCAL TAXATION.
The records Of the Census Bureau show that
OF the several states OF the union amounted
sGs nss eS to- 1854 year and @
n aSis ss sum only $685.
55.OIG 10 were realized from customs. II 10
the II OSss FSdsT.
not paid equally by the people and is so bur-
densome to the poor man, and yet such taxa,
local taxation.
VIVA STATES WILL PAT THE TAX.
From 1888 to 1873 the former income tax
extorted from the psorie an aggregate sum OF
States paid il per cent. the Middle States So
ger cent, ana together they paid n per cent at;
materially changed II this bill becomes law.
raY, e 81 tho hsn
this bill the real motives behind 1t. and the
source or section from which the votes neces-
Further comment becom es unnecessary. will
add that am not ashamed OF the fact-on the
is the wealthisst state in our Union but pro-
test that this circumstance should not make
her citizens the target OF every vicious scheme
especially that the blow should not be struck
by those political friends who have never ap;
pealed to her in vain when they have needed
evidences OF her friendship
A STEP TOWARD SOCIALISM.
1t is charged against the friends Of Fede-
raj income tax that they are artiully driving IN
distribution OF property.
Toward such purpose. were II fixed In the
svery kind Of an income tax is undeniable.
whether applied in state laws to the profit OF
classes or in Federal law to the profit OF &C.
tions.
feel hound to concede that the sincere OBJ
ject OF the great body OF the friends OF n Fed
socialism. is not a swift political suicide. butts
the straightforward iurtherance. after great
discouTagement and long delay-the further
,The choice Of q pivot for tariff reform In this
biz responds to the firm tensc!ty Of the people
to be sure, a notable British precedent but
that precedent ID quite Irrelevant Tor America
analogy to the foreign agglom GRAFTON Of Inn
peria! and Local taxation.
The British kingdom Ia straining to-day In
the pangs OF decentralization. A Federal in
come tax would lay in the United states the
great corner stone OF future capitalization
the United Statss-thatis. obtaining revenue
from one source In order to discard reyepus
from another source is a necessity. What
The British choice may have been expedient
ehoe rs IN ths United States NEEDS to- be- shown
expedient here. Alone serving the purpose.
or best serving the purpose, OF pivot for tar
an income tax In the United States. even By
those who deem 1t an inoifensive and lawful
it is obviously. insxpedisnt. II unnecessar y.
'hs bns 0s tns pT
Tered to their consideration.
THE ENGLISH PRECEDENT.
Praises OF an income tax which are quoted
In the Congressional Record from British books
the d LEI Of i the discarded taxeS Mr. Glad.
stone himself desired to renounce the income
i do not misstate his position. The follow
ing letter. written by him In 1892 to London
newspaper explains Itself:
oLADsToNE's OPINION OF THE INCOME TAX.
Vom the london Pail Mall GUSTS.
9. 81 Eth as OF
FUr shis l. Win my eosarae. pfopossd Il. a.
clifton in 1914 but the country decided Otherwise
JAsUAEY 1892 ". X. GLADSTONE
That ststesman's act praises good tariff tax
alton over bad tariff taxation. and over income
taxation. too The United States can find.
upon reflection. n better pivot OF tariff reform,
and one which will not need to be renowned
for it's own dement's. Praises Of an income
tax and theoretical AIRuments for 1t. quoted In
the Record from the British treatises OF politl-
cal economy Will be found TO rest on the as
sumption that 1t be the sole aud single tax
that IL be the exclusive means Of deiraying
Government expense, from the highest i'm
perial to the lowest police functions. and that
II tolerate no exemptions.
All such quoted arguments are obviously
Irrelevant here. No British statesman OF rank.
so far as know. differs from MIR. Gladstones
opinion that as supplementary tax. the In
come tax In Great Britain, where upon consti-
tutional grounds IL 10 eligible. II Is as indie
fensible as II is odtons In time OF peace. and
that there II must find Its only warrant in the
necessities OF war.
No American statesman Of rank. except Dir.
Cleveland, has deemed It eligible. since our
war experience OF an income tax made mani
fest that here. too. in the Northern States. II
was generally odiouG IL Is a novelty IN
American politics to make its conclusions and
procedures deliberately offensive; 1t Is like
making religion immoral and urhanity noisy
In order to commend and propaga ate them.