Herald and news. [volume] (West Randolph, Vt.) 1878-1943, 1909-08-19
FIeHTINc rHg INcoME az.


Evidence accumulates that, in side
tracking the income tax proposition and
substituting the corporation tax as a fea-
ture of the new tariff bill, with an altern-
alive offer Of an income tax amendment
to the federal constitution, sundry Re-
publican senators and representatives
were not entirely ingenious. Having
voted, soberly enough, for the corpora
tion tax and for submitting the income
tax amendment, they now come out
strongly in opposition.
So far as the corporation tax goes, this
is immaterial, for it is law already, and
will doubtless prove its benefit so thor
oughly as to insure its permanence. The
single feature of federal oversight OF big
corporations, aud federal insight of their
finances, such Is this tax provision will
give, alone justiHes it, to say nothing of
the revenue to be derived.
However, it is different with the in
come tax proposition, which still has the
gauntlet to run OF ratification by three
iourths OF the states before it becomes
operative, and even then is merely per-
missive, giving TO Congress the power TO
lay an income tax in its judgment. The
states viii act on this amendment
through the several legislatures. The re-
suits thus far are not assuring as to ratin-
cation by the necessary three-fourths.
Alabama promptly ratified. In Georgia
the Senate refuses to consider the subject,
virtually defeating it. Connecticut has
postponed the question until the session
of 1911. The Central, Western and most
Of the Southern states are counted upon
to support the amendment, while the
East viii generally oppose it. An ex-
PLANTATION OF this sectional alignment is
that most OF the revenues from an income
tax would come from that part OF the
union lying east Of the Mississippi and
north OF the Ohio and Potomac.
We note that Senator Dillingham; Of
Vermont comes out strongly against the
income tax and hopes Vermont will not
ratify it at the session OF 1910. He ad-
vances the sectional argument given
above and also urges that Vermont
should herself retain the right to tax in
federal government. We suspect. how.
ever, that the senator does not favor tax.
ing incomes anyway, and would scarcely
support proposition to tax them in Yer.
mont, il one we're offered.
State taxation OF incomes is not practi.
cal. No state, mindful of its own inter.
ests, would tax individual incomes while
adjoining states did not. To do this
would be like showing the door to pos.
SCISSORS Of wealth, who can usually pull
up stakes easily and move. But let the
federal government tax incomes alike al
over the union and they would have to
submit. II it is ever done fairly and
effectively, it will be by the United
States, not by individual states, and We
consider the plea offered to Vermont in
the way of seIf-interest a specious one.
II the federal government ever does tar
incomes. it viii not stop the states from
taxing them also, il it wishes, and they
till then be taxed doubly no more than
are corporations-and much real property
at present.
! If our Vermont senators did not favor
: the proposed amendment to the constitu.
ton, Why did they vote to submit it to the
states Having voted to submit it, " BY
do they now come home and oppose it