Eagle River review. [volume] (Eagle River, Wis.) 1890-1927, 1894-07-12

act such a measure without getting the
judgment of the country upon it.
III. AS proposed, the tax is distinct
ly a class tax. 1t is not, like the Eng
lish income tax, imposed on all incomes,
with very moderate exemptions. On the
contrary, the majority of incomes are ex-
empted; only minority are taxed.
Iii. The tax is further unjust in that,
in the nature of the case, it bears more
hardly on men whose income is 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 i'll goods,
the value of which is generally unde-
fined and often undefinable. though their
real income may be as large, will pay no
tax or q small one.
Nv. 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.
This was VIGOROUSLY the fact during the
civil war; there is no reason to suppose
that it will be otherwise now.
~. The process of collection is in
quisitorial 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 Il reason for abol-
fishing all taxes on personal property, or
all taxes except on income-prOducing
property, such as bonds and stocks, which
can be collected without inquisition One
yeXatlOuS tax does not justify another
yexatDus 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 hundred houses
should pay more tax than the householder
require more of all the advantages
which government affords, and for
which governmental money is paid. A
tax levied on 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
erty. But a tax levied on incomes de-
rived from personal industry is not just
The personal industry which earns $780,
600 asks no more from government and
costs government no more than the per-
sonal industry which earns $1,000. The
only reason for such a tax lies in the
ability of the person to pay it. This is
a good ground for expecting a larger vol
untary contribution, but not a good
ground for levying a larger enforced
contribution.
WI. 1t does not suffice as a reply to
these considerations to say that an in
come tax is not so unjust as a protective
system. The Democratic party is not re-
duced to this Hobson's choice He who
defends the income tax, as proposed in
the pending measure, must show that
free raw materials, moderate tax on
imported articles of common use, a
higher tax on articles of luxury, and a
reasonable tax on incomes directly de-
rived from invested property, would not
be sufficient to meet the expenses of the
government economically administered.
Until this has been shown. there is no
just and reasonable ground for the re-
introduction of the income tax, so reluct-
antly submitted to during the war, and
so promptly repealed at the close of the
war. -