Reporter and farmer. [volume] (Webster, Day County, Dakota [S.D.]) 188?-1946, 1894-07-19

act such a measure without getting
judgment of the country upon il.
III. As proposed, the tax is distins
ly a class tax. 1t is not, like the En-
fish income tax, imposed on all income
with very moderate exemptions. On Il
contrary, the majority of incomes are IL
empted; only a minority are taxed.
Iii. The tax is further unjust in thai
in the nature of the case. il bears NOR,
hardly on men whose income is all 8
money income. 1t will be collected frs.
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 un0r-
fined and often undefnable. though their
real income may be as large, Will pay IL
tax or a small one.
Nv. Experience proves that this in
Justice will be further aggravated by
deliberate dishonesty. The tax viii he
dependent on the statement Of the person
taxed. The honest and the optimistic
VIII 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 Nc
''N AA' iAS"N " ALlS ohlEtAAbA ~ II
ply that the collection of taxes on per
sonal property is inquisitorial and vex,
atiouS. That may be a reason for ah0l-
fishing all taxes on personal property. o.
all taxes except on inCOme-produciuE
property. such as bonds and stocks. which
can be collected without inquisiuon. One
veXatiOus tax does not justify another
veXatiOus tax.
"vT. The tax is wrong in principle,
Taxes should be levied on property. not
on industry. There is a reason why the
landlord who owns a hundred houses
should pay more tax than the householder
who OWLS one, for his hundred house,
require more of all the advantage.
which government affords, and fo
which governmental money is paid.
tax levied on income derived from II
vested property is therefore inherent
just. and the fact that part of il is paj
10y widows and orphans does not mai
il less just. 1t is right that they shOu
pay the expense of protecting their pro
crty. But Il tax levied on incomes q
rived from personal industry is not ju>
The personal industry which earns 81
OU0 asks no more from government ~
costs government no more than the n
s0naI industry which earns $1,000. L
only reason for such a tax lies in 4
ability of the person to pay it. This
Il good ground tor expecting a larger Vt
untary contribution, but not a 60,
ground for leyying a larger enforc'
contribution.
WI. 1t does not suffice as n reply
these considerations to say that an j
come tax is not so unjust as a protectiN
system. The Democratic party is not r
duced to this Hobson's choice. He WI
defends the income tax, as proposed /
the pending measure, must show thu
free raw materials, a moderate tax o
imported articles of common use, /
higher tax on articles OF luxury, and /
reasonable tax on incomes directly DE
rived from invested property. would not
be sufficient TO meet the expenses of the
economically administered.
Until this has been shown, there is no
lust and reasonable ground for the re-
introduction of the income tax, so reluct-
antlv submitted to during the war, and
$ 0 promptly repealed at the close of the
war.