Hutchinson gazette. [volume] (Hutchinson, Kan.) 1895-1902, 1898-01-20
An inheritance Tax.

The Wilson Tariff bill was branded
"a free trade measured" it failed to
yield sufficient revenue to pay the run
ming expenses of the government. The
Dingley bill was gotten up as "pro-
tective measured" and it also fails to
yield sufficient revenue to pay the ex-
penses of the government 1t is obvl-
Gus that protective measure to the
extreme of prohibiting importations
would yield no revenue at all; also alb
solutely free trade would yield no rev.
enue. Just at what point between
these two extremes we shall decide in
favor of, has been the leading issue
between the two dominant parties for
a number of years. "a tariff for reve-
nue. only" and "a protective tariff for
our infant industries" have been the
two slogans. Thus precious time has
been frittered away, many important
questions neglected, and many en-
croachments have been made by cor
porations, trusts, combines, etc.
The constitution requires that all
revenues required for national uses
shall be raised by indirect taxation.
This brings into prominence the impo-
sition of tariffs upon foreign importa-
lions. To produce q revenue there
must be importations; the tariff must
be sufficient to yield revenue, yet not
so high as to discourage importations.
1t was formerly thought that in this
way our revenues were paid by foreign
importers But the fact is that almost
all our importers are our own citizens;
also, as all duties are added to the sell
ing price of the goods, the final pur-
chaser pays the duties, and hence pays
our revenues. This is indirect taxation.
The importer pays it, but he gets it
back from the purchaser of the goods.
Suppose the importer sells to the
wholesaler, the wholesaler to the job
Der, the jobber to the retailer, and the
retailer to the consumer The only
one that really pays the tax is the
consumer, for all the others getit back,
each from the next one sold to. A tax
on consumption is tax on the means
of living; q tax on the means OF living
is a tax upon the man himself. AS
moor man eats about as much as rich
man Sugar for example), and both
must wear clothes, this system of tax
alton taxes both nearly alike. To tax
possessions instead of the means of
living would be much more just, for
then the rich would bear their right
full share.
OF all forms of taxes, the form least
burdensome is tax on the estates Of
the dead. The former owner, now
dead, is not taxed, for he has passed
beyond the realm of the taX-gatherer.
The prospective heir is not taxed, for
he has no right to the property (Which
he did not create except by permission
of the state. There are many reasons
why the state should retain portion,
particularly in the case of excessively
large fortunes. During and for several
veurs after the war we had very sue
cessful national law for Inheritance
taxation. The law was repealed in the
early '7O's. In these days of deficient
revenue, we should try this plan again'
Many other countries do it successful
". But fear that our present su-
preme court would declare such law
unconstitutional" Amt you getting
tired of this unconstitutional bust
ness? am. That is the trouble with
a written constitution; Other coun-
tries don't have sucn 'iron clad" con-
stitutions as ours, and hence laws that
nre made stand as laws until repealed
by the power that originally made
them. But our courts, by means of
our constitutions, state and national,
repeal many OF our laws Imagine an