The herald-advance. (Milbank, S.D.) 1890-1922, 1894-07-20

strongly towards the Cleveland admins
,.ation. gives seven objections against
the Democratic income tax, which com
mand Il careful reading:
i. The method of its imposition is un-
Democratic. The Democratic party asked
the people of this country to ntrust it
with power for certain definite and speci-
nc purposes. The repeal of the protective
system was one; the establishment OF
blmetallism was another. The imposi-
ton OF an income tax was not one of
those purposes. 1t is at least very doubt
full whether the Democratic party could
have carried the last congressional elec-
ton if it had proposed to enact the in
come tax. 1t is not Democratic to en-
act such measure without getting the
Judgment of the country upon it.
IL. As proposed the tax is distinct
~ a class tax. 1t is not, like the Eng
llsh income tax, imposed on all incomes.
with very moderate exemptions. On the
contrary. the majority Of incomes are eX-
empted: only a minority are taxed
Ill. The tax is further unjust in that,
hardly on men whose income s all a
money income. 1t will be collected first
from salaried men: then from lawyers
and doctors, whose income Is composed
OF fees. Merchants manufacturers and
farmers. whose incomes are in goods,
the value of which is generally unde-
fined and often unde6nable, though their
real income may be as large will pay no
tax or a small one
~. Experience proves that this in
Justice will be further aggravated by
deliberate dishonesty. The tax will be
dependent on the statement of the person
taxed The honest and the optimistic
Will be heavily taxed; the dishonest and
the less sanguine will escape taxation.
Ih!s was notoriously the fact during the
civil war; there is no reason to suppose
that It will be otherwise now
". The process of collection is in
quisltorial and vexatious. 1t is no
adequate answer to this objection to re-
ply that the collection of taxes on per-
sonal property is inquisitorial and vex-
atlous. That may be reason for abol-
lshlng all taxes on personal property. or
all taxes except on income-producing
property, such as bonds and stocks. which
can be collected without inquisiton One
veXatious tax does not justify another
vexatious tax.
wi. The tax is wrong in principle.
Taxes should be levied on property. not
on industry. There is reason why the
landlord who owns a hundred houses
should pay more tax than the householder
who owns one, for his hundred houses
require more of all the advantages
which government affords, and for
which governmental money is paid A
tax levied Oh income derived from in
vested property is therefore inherently
just, and the fact that part of it is paid
by widows and orphans does not make
it less just. 1t is right that they should
pay the expense of protecting their prop
erty. But tax levied on incomes de-
rived from personal industry is not just.
The personal industry which earns S1O,-
OOO asks no more from government and
costs government no more than the per-
sonal industry which earns $1,000. The
only reason for such tax lies in the
ability of the person to pay it. This Is
Il good ground for expecting larger vol
untary contribution, but not good
ground for leyying larger enforced
contribution.
these considerations to say that an in.
come tax is not SO unjust as protective
system. The Democratic party is not re.
duced to this Hobson's choice He who
defends the income tax, as proposed III
the pending measure. must show thu,
free raw materials, a moderate tax IA
imported articles Of common use. !,
higher tax on articles of luxury. and i
reasonable tax on incomes directly do
rived from invested property, would moi
be sufficient to meet the expenses Of the
government economically administered
Until this has been shown, there is n,
just and reasonable ground for the re
introduction of the income tax so reluct
antly submitted to during the war anG
SO promptly repealed at the close of the
war.