Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1899-08-23

small incomes by internal revenue
taxes and import duties, it would be
manifestly unjust to continue the ine-
quality by making them pay per
cent. equal to that collected from the
possessors of large incomes.
The two per cent. tax upon the net
income of corporations was defended
upon the ground that the corporation
enjoys special privileges provided in
that law. Many who did not under
stand the reason for the exemption
protested against it and insisted that
two per cent. should apply to all in
comes, large and small. But since ex-
cessive burdens are conferred by law
and occupies much of the time of the
Federal legislature, the Federal exc
cutive and the Federal courts. Just
prior to the passage of the Wilson bill
l obtained, through the courtesy of
Secretary Gresham, statistics from
number of European governments.
| found that in Prussia the income
tax had been in operation about 20
years, and that incomes under 900
marks were exempt, while the tax
ranged from less than one per cent. to
about four per cent. on larger incomes.
In Austria the income tax had been
in operation about thirty years. In
comes under $113 were exempt, while
the rate ranged from eight per cent. up
to 20 per cent. on larger incomes. l
found that in Italy incomes under
$77.20 were exempt, while the rate ran
as high as 13 per cent. on some incomes.
In the Netherlands the income tax had
been in operation since 1925. At that
time investigation was made incomes
under $3.50 were exempt, and the tax
ranged from three per cent. to three
and one.fifth per cent. on incomes over
that sum. In Zurich, Switzerland, the
income tax had been in operation for
more than half a century. At the
time investigation was made incomes
varied from one per cent. to eight per
cent. In England the rate for 1892
was little more than two per cent.
on incomes above $4,000 and a little
less upon incomes under $4,000. All
incomes under $3.50 were exempt.
For nearly 10 years during and af-
ter the Civil war an income tax rang
ing from 24 per cent. 10 10 per cent.
was collected in this country. Exemp-
tions ranged from $500 to $4,000.
Senator John Sherman, of Ohio, was
opposed to the repeal of these taxes,
and in the course of a speech said
"The senator from New York and the
senator from Massachusetts have led
off in declaring against the income
tax. They have declared it to be in
vidious. Well, sir, all taxes are invid-
ious. They think it is inquisitorial.
Well, sir, there never was tax in the
world that was not inquisitorial. The
least inquisitorial of all is the income
tax. \ There never was 80 just
tax levied as the income tax. There
is no objection that can be urged against
the income tax that cannot point to
in every tax. Writers on political
economy. as we'll as our own senti-
ments of what is just and right, teach
US that a man ought to pay taxes ac-
cording to his income, and in no other
way" Senator Sherman pointed out
that at that time only $27 900, 900 were
collected upon incomes, while the food
and clothing of the people were taxed
$500, 900, ,OOO."
Senator Morton, of Indiana, in op-
posing the repeal of the tax, said:
"The income tax is, of all others, the
most equitable, because it is the truest
measure that has yet been found of the
productive property of the country"
Senator Howe said: "There is hot
a tax on the books 80 little, so abso-
lutely unfelt in the payment of it, as
this income tax by the possessors of
the great fortunes upon which it falls.
"There is not poor man in this
country, not laborer in this country,
but what contributes more than 3,
more than 10, more than 20 per cent.
of all his earnings to the treasury OF
the United States under those very
laws against which am objecting, and
now we are invited to increase their
contributions and to release these trif-
ling contributions which we have been
receiving from incomes heretofore"
But in spite of these protests the
tax was repealed, and during the years
that have followed the government has
continued this discrimination in favor
of the rich and against the poor.
Why? Because wealth has been as
suming larger and larger share in
the control of the government, and
the rights of the masses have been less
and less considered. A tax system
which overburdens some and lightly
burdens others is larceny by law; tits
an indirect means by which one mans
money is transferred to another mans
pocket. 1t 1896 those who objected to
an income tax, instead of arguing
against the righteousness of the law,
shielded themselves behind the deci-
sion of the supreme court, and assert
ed that any discussion of the tax was
an assault upon the honor of the court.
At present the government can draft
the citizen, but cannot draft the pock-
etbook. Slowly but surely the dollar
is being exalted, and the man debased.
Justice in taxation must be restored.
The sentiment prevailing among
those who advocate an income tax
iustiies the prediction that the Demo
Gratis, Populists and Silver Republicans
will, in the next campaign, advocate
an amendment to the constitution
,naci6callv authorizing an income tax,