The commercial. (Union City, Tenn.) 190?-193?, 1905-01-20
TAXING BACHELORS.

lie blli introduced itY heife
sentative Rawls To levy special
taxes on bachelors is, however Sc
riously proposed, an attempt to
make practical an old and con.
stantly recurring joke. 1t is
doubtless the duty of every man
to marry if he feels capable OF
taking care of good woman and
making her happy, and if he finds
that he can get the woman of his
choice to agree TO share his lot iq
life. But it is to be doubted
whether a law imposing penalties
on celibacy, if such law were
constitutional, would prove at all
benefcent or contribute largely TO
the sum of human happiness, an
end which should be the ultimate
aim of all laws. If the purpose of
tax on bachelors be to encourage
matrimony the success of such a
compulsory measure would be
more likely to increase the num-
Der of ill-considared marriages,
and eventually add to the list of
suits for divorce. The men who
would marry simply to escape a
tax would lack the true incentive
and be less likely to make good
husbands. Besides the law would
prove inequitable, in that it would
enable men who would rush into
hasty and inconsiderate matrimo-
NAL alliance to escape the tax,
while the men who would consider
all that is involved in marital hap
plness and well-being would be
left to pay the penalty for a judi
cious regard for the responsible
ties and requirements of family
life.
But if the proposed law is in
tended merely as a means of Sc
curing more revenue for the State
it is quite as defective and inequit-
able as a species of special legisla-
ton. A bachelor, for instance,
who can scarcely find means for
supporting himself, not to speak
of a wife and a lot of children,
would have to pay as much tax for
celibacy as the opulent bachelor
who lives in luxury and is indis-
posed to share his wealth with a
loving helpmate. Besides the ar
bitrary fixing of taxes to different
ages of bachelors is open to seri-
Gus question. Why should a bach.
elor between the ages of As and 50
be required ITO pay an annual tax
of $3.50, when q bachelor of 80 is
taxed only $l002 1t is proposed
to mulct the older bachelor in an
amount more than double the fine
upon the younger, when,
perhaps, the older is still in a
state of single nnblessedness sim
ply because he has been so nnfor-
tnnate as to be unable to induce
the woman of his heart to marry
him. In such case it would seem
but just that the tax be decreased
or RENTED instead of being made |
more burdensome. If the tax is
to be regarded as a penalty for en-
couraging race suicide there are
considerations that are
unconsidered by the Trainer of the
bill. Various questions OF heredi-
~, environment, temperament,
mental and physical hindrances,
ETC., aside from the sentimental
bearings enter into matrimonial
problems, and these considerations
are ignored in the bill.
Nevertheless the bachelor tax
bill will hardly cause the Legisla-
Iure to be besieged by a lobby of
frightened and protesting bache-
lors, and doubtless there are few
women who will expect that the
pending bill will induce their bach
alor beaux to become suddenly
more fervent in their attentions,
it is not unlikely that, as
4 pleasant subject for jesting, it
may afford an easy opportunity for
some timid bachelors to seriously
Droach the momentous Issue and
pop the question which is to de-