Barbour County index. [volume] (Medicine Lodge, Kan.) 1880-current, 1907-01-09
THE INCOME TAX.

tcu years dItcI tIic ADVERSE QcCiSlOn Oh
the supreme court IS again subject for
discussion. The presidents recognition
has brought out the fact that quite a
change has gone on in public sentiment
favorable to the tax, but it has also
brought out the fact equally interesting
that the republican leaders are not going
to favor the tax. The St Louis Globe
Democrat, which can generally be relied
upon to take the side Of predatory wealth,
calls halt on the income tax. 1t is
afraid that so much money would be
raised by the income tax that no import
duties would be necessary. This sug-
gestion alone viii bring all the beneficial
nes Of high tariff into opposition. They
have been collecting incomes through the
taft law, and out of pure gratitude ought
to be willing to pay an income tax, but
gratitude is not prominent quality among
those who enjoy special privileges. They
come to regard them as vested rights.
If the president undertakes to push the
income tax, he will have to rely for his
support upon the democrats and upon
those republicans who are in a position
to give expression to their sense Of JUS
tee. The Clobe-Democrat editorial
may be accepted as evidence that there
will be strong plutocrahc opposition to
the income tax.
The discussion, however, has brought
out the fact that some Of the rich men
have come over to the side Of those who
believe in the business Of the income tax.
Mr.. NJ. E. ingalls,, former president Of
the Big Four railroad and an active OPP
ponent of the democratic party in 1896,
declares that he is in favor of an income
tax, but he does not want graded one.
MIR. Perry Belmont is also in favor Of an
income tax, but does not want it levied
upon punitive principles, but as matter
Of revenue. Mr.. Carnegie is opposed to
the income tax, but is in favor Of an In
heritance tax. He believes that rich
men ought to be compelled to turn over
some of their surplus wealth at death.
AT the Civic Federation meeting in New
York the other day he said: Our coun-
Try fails in its duty if it does not exact
share, tremendous share Of the estate
Of the enormously wealthy man upon his
death. The money belongs to the com-
muniy. Do not mistake me. do not
advocate the making of man a pauper
or the pauperi1ing Of his children, but it
is not the millionaire who made the
wealth. He did not make the ore or
the coal or the gold that he dug out Of
the ground. The Montana copper mine
owner did not make his wealth; it be-
longs in the abstract to the people who
use It and who produce the use which
makes it valuable. | am with the prea.
dent, then. to tax heavily by graduated
taxation every man who dies leaving be.
hind him his millions. for | think that exces
sive wealth left to child is an injury to
the child"
MIR. Carnegie might give other reasons
IN defense Of an inheritance tax. Many
Of the large fortunes have been acquired
by the monopolizing Of markets and b,
the bankruptcy Of nvals. The none,
collected has in many cases been collect
ed by means which are immoral If no
Illegal. and society could justify claim
to part as fine.
| But. after all. there is better remedy
than the inheritance tax if the real Dur.
pose Of the tax is to be levied as a pun
ishment. Instead Of allowing the gov
eminent to grant privileges, to create IA
vors and to sell immunity to great high
waymen., why not restore the government
to its legitimate functions and take ava,
the special advantages which have bee,
granted by law2 If each individual
put upon his own merits and left to Sc
cure only so much as he can earn, tn,
fortunes will not be so fabulous as the,
are now. An ounce of prevention
; worth a pound Of cure, according t
the old proverb. and it is certainly wise
to prevent unjust Accommodations than t
permit them to extend through a life o
condition that the government shall q
the end Of the life receive share Of tn
plmder.