New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1894-01-17

i ouG W. punishment S ALLY aeGLCAlS' sehal
on its face promises either, is therefor,
likely to be hailed with JOY. Again witt
many the word corporation is synoni
nous with s.capital' = and ssWealth and tht
conclusion is jumped at, that q tax on {
Incorporation is a tax on the rich, when al
a matter Of fact in most cases it is really
a tax on production.
Z A little closer study Of the question
will soon convince one that this proposed
tax is one in which appearances are espe.
cially deceptive. a tax is never permit
mitted to rest in ssinoccuous dessuetude.'
It is an unwelcome visitor. No one will
pay tax out of his own pocket SO lorg
as by any means or contrivance he can
shift i. on someone else. It is a good
deal like the sstag'' among boys, which is
shifted from boy to DO; until it gets to
the poor little fellow with the club foot
who can't get away from it. A tax as a
rule falls eventually on the fellow least
able to- pay it; and this I believe to be,
in part at least, an explanation Of our in
born aversion to taxes. The suggestion
that the taxes are paid by those least
able to bear them may seem paradoxical
but on the whole believe it to be true.
We often hear it said, in the legisla-
ture for instance, that the interests of the
farmers need special consideration, for
"they pay the taxes and we as
often hear that statement laughed at and
secuted, but inquiry and examination
will show that there is more truth in it
than taffy.
Take for instance the tax on a retail
merchants stock. Does any one doubt
but that it is made up in the price of the
goods just the same as freight charges
and other expenses? If it is, then the
tax in that instance falls on the consul
mers and not on the merchants. Of
course, concede that there may be con
ditions of competition in trade:where the
merchant may not be able to get back
either taxes or freight, but they are the
exception. The merchant as rule shifts
the burden Of the tax on the consumer.
To illustrate this more fully. Let us
suppose that the manufacturer Of the
prints and hosiery sold by the retailer,
located in Mass, pays a tax on his fact
DRY or on his business. Which do you
suppose he does, charge it up to his per-
sonal account, or to his business? lin
agine to the business, and unless the
competition IS exceedingly keen it will
surely be added to the price ofhis goods,
just the same as the other items of ex-
pense of production. He, in the irst,in-
stance, shifts the tax on the wholesaler;
The wholesaler, with local taxes added,
shifts the burden on the retailer and the
latter dumps the load on the consumer.
But take another class of taxes, more sim
liar to the proposed tax - the gross
earnings tax on the railroads in this
State. Nearly all the expense of our
State government is betrayed from this
source. Itagglegates nearly one million
dollars per annum. Our city papers are
continually lauding this scheme as the
noblest monument to legislative wisdom
that our statutes have to show. Well
they may-by means Of it the cities es-
cape to great extent the burden of State
taxes. In lieu of other taxes on railroad
property, we collect tax Of three per
cent. on the gross earnings of the rail
roads which is covered into the state
treasury. How is the money derived for
paying this tax? Does it come from the
stock holders pockets, or from the earn
ings of the road? The answer is self-evi-
dent. The money is paid from the re-
ceipts Of the road, just the same as ex-
penses, for maintenance and operation.
If the railroads were relieved from this
burden, does any one doubt but that they
could afford to give the public cheaper
transportation? They certainly could.
II our State alone. should release this tax
1t might haze but little effect as most Of
L Z !.
our roads run into and are taxed in adj
joining states. | am not arguing for the
repeal of railroad taxes so long as adj
joining states impose them. Such a
course would be folly. But the fact that
I desire to emphasize is, that a tax on
railroads is necessarily a tax or burden
on transp ortation. H it is a burden on
trans portation it is reflected in higher
rates and it follows, that in the enc, It is
mot the railroad (stockhold ers but the
public that pays the tax OF course, as
suggested above, there may beroads that
Iare 50 situated and so pressed by compe-.