The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1894-01-03
al Botharsome Question.

The democratic members are finding 1t
difficult TO decide whether to recommend
a tax on individual incomes or only on in
comes derived from investments in
stocks and bonds. 1t was expected they
night. They held a meeting for that pur-
pose, but reached no conclusion.
The question is difficult one. A tax
on all incomes over a certain amount say
"a, 600, would be very unpopular. II
would be resisted in every possible way,
and would lead great many democrats
TO leave their party, if the Republican
party should promise to repeal the tax.
IL would be just tax if it could be
fairly assessed and collected. 1t would
require an army Of assessors and col
leetors to carry the law into effect, and it
is certain that only small part of the
amount due under the law would be col
lected. In letter to the New York
Herald recently, Mr.. Thomas G. Sher-
man, OF New York, the statistician, said
that not more than one-third Of the reve-
nue. tax due the government in Great
Britain is ever collected. The same, he
said, is true in respect TO Prussia and
Saxony, while in Italy and other coun-
tries where there is an income tax an hon
est return of incomes is something I'M
known. AS a general thing, the people
return only a half or quarter of their in
comes. Mr.. Sherman, in a statement be-
fore the ways and means committee, de-
clared that "the last years of the Ameri-
can income tax were a carnival of fraud,
perjury and blackmail"
A tax only on incomes derived from in
vestments in stocks and bonds, as pro-
posed by Secretary Carlisle, would be so
manifestly unjust as to meet with very
general opposition. Would it be right to
tax an income amounting to s., 900 derived
from an investment in the stocks and
bonds of the New York Central railroad
and not tax the $50, 900 income paid to Mr..
Depew, the president of that road
Would it be just to tax the income,
amounting to 5000, of the holder Of
stocks and bonds, and not tax the income
of the Astors, derived from real estate,
amounting to hundreds of thousands of
dollars
There is no doubt that the question of
finding new sources of revenue is a diff
cult one, but it is one in respect to which
the Democratic party cannot afford to
make a mistake. 1t is probable that there
would be no hesitation in putting tax on
raw sugar and repeating the sugar bounty
at once, if it were not for the fear that a
sugar tax would be extremely unpopular.
But would it harm the Democratic party
as much as an income taxi We do not
believe it would. A sugar tax has al
ways been regarded asa revenue tax and
there was no fault found with it when the
Republican party repealed it. That party
repealed it for the sole purpose of making
it more difficult to reduce the taxes that
benefit the protected monopolists.
The sugar producers would much rather
have tax on sugar than the bounty.
They always opposed the bounty, because
they recognized the fact that it is undem-
ocratic and that constant efforts would
be made to repeal it. They are very
much opposed to the sugar schedule in
the Wilson bill because it violates what
they claim is contract between them
and the government.
The democrats of the ways and means
committee are earnestly endeavoring to
find out what is the best thing to recon-
mend. They may not decide wisely, but
they will recommend that which they be-
lieve to be the best.