The Lexington intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1901-1949, 1904-02-06

huu equiJdole,
Under our present system of indirect
taxation by means of import duties tax
ing what the people consume, throws
the burden Of the government upon
the poor, and middle classes as contra
distinguished from the rich, or in q
manner compels them to pay all of the
taxes for maintaining the national
government, and supporting it on their
already over bHrdened shoulders, as
only pittance, comparatively speak
ing is contributed by the Opulent.
1t is estimated that $4,000 persons
own one.half Of the property OF the
United States, and that 100000 per.
sons own and control about 80 per cent
OF the entire wealth of the nation.
This handful Of people compared with
SO,OOO,OOO population, contributed
practically nothing to the support of
the national government, yet own the
greater part Of the country's wealth.
In the year 1866 the income tax laws
of the United States produced $751;
600, 900, over one-halt of which was on
incomes in excess of $4,000 year, and
this income tax was paid by 250,000
persons out of population of 100000
900, estimating the families Of the per
sons who paid income taxes about
million persons we're interested IN the
repeal Of that tax, and the other &c.
000, 900 were interested in having it
maintained. Less than 100000
persons including the families of the
wealthy are interested in avoiding an
income tax now, while 100000
are interested in having part Of the
burdens of the government placed
where they belong, on the incomes OF
the rich.
OF the $500, ,O0Q, 900 raised annually
to defray the cost Of maintaining the
government, $4,000 to 10000 persons
who own most Of the country's wealth
contributed less tnan one-half million
of their consumption to maintain the
general government, while the other
half Of Tie nations wealth contributes
s499, 500, ,0J0y Z Is this just OF equitable
Wnen the last income tax made by
congress was before the supreme court,
the court first held the law to be con-
stitutional, but during the night one Of
the judges changed his opinion, and
the next day majority of the same
court said the law was unconstitutional
The representatives of concentrated
wealth see to it that no man ia APP
pointed to the federal bench excep;
their frledds. They have corporation
lawyers made into judges, men who
take with them on the bench their
bias and preiudices and IN this way
the corporations are secure es they
never have to buy what they already
own Corporations and concentrated
wealth triumph for the time being,
They have established the principal in
this government hat you cannot com
pei corporations who receive valuable
franchises aud privileges from the
people, TO pay one cent taxes on al
their wealth to help maintain the gov.
eminent, which grants them theiI
rights. MlliiOnaires pay no taxes tC
the nation. neither on their wealth mol
incomes. Is it rightP Ii the govern
ment can draft you and your boys tc
60 to war to protect wealth, should 1t
not be able to tax wealth?
The objection to an income tax that
dishonest returns will be made is nc
objection to the law. A mans income
can be determined as well as his
property. That many men are dis,
honest cannot be questioned. There
are some difficulties in all tax systems
but the income system has the least
objections of any. The objection:
that vacant lands and lots are increas-
ing in value yet yield no present in
come, is not serious as it is "deferrcd
income" Rhich will be realized In the
end. Tax dodgipg, smuggling and
perjury are as old as tax laws.
Laws do not make thieves and per-
jurers Qbey are born) Laws are made
to punish criminals, but they cannot
prevent crimes. Nor Will such laws
drive wealth from the country, fol
they could not better their conditions
or prevent taxation by going to other
nations as they could not escape the
income tax.