Ottumwa tri-weekly courier. [volume] (Ottumwa, Iowa) 1903-1916, 1909-05-04
The INCOME TAX.


law is now attracting attention IN
Washington. Senator Bailey OF Texas
seems to be taking the matter more
seriously than any one else there.
This subject of an income tax is
an old one. 1t has for many years
been a topic for debate and discus
sions in private conversation and in
public places During the last week.
Senator Bailey has taken up nearly
two full days in a speech favoring the
Income tax attachment to the tariff
bill now pending before congress.
Part of Senator Bailey's discussion
was for the purpose of showing, as ne
sees it, that an income tax can be
collected in accordance with the con-
stitution of the U. s. This is the nara
problem in connection with the enact
ment of law for the collection OF the
tax on individual incomes.
The constitution of the U. S. says
that all direct taxes shall be Levied
IN the whole population. The supreme
court of the u. S. in 1894 passed up
on the constitutionality of the income
tax. At that time the court decided
that as the income tax was direct
tax. and as it affected only part OF
The people. toswit. those receiving
over d named amount as an income, "
could not be collected under the con-
stitution.
The income tax at first glance seems
10 be a plan by which those getting
big incomes will be made to give up
a share, but it is question whether
1t would do that or not.
A man receiving an income from
rent might have to pay some OF the
Income tax However, he could get
n hack by raising the rent of his ten
ants. SO that in reality, he would not
be paying it, but his tenants would.
The trouble with great many OF
Dur reforms that are instituted In the
interest of the common people, is that
the poor man has to pay the BILL
Some reformer starts a reform in the
Interest of the poor man, but the said
poor man pays the interest. The most
of recent reforms work against In
stead of for the workingman.
1t is not likely that congressman
Or a senator with a salary of $500 a
year, with an opportunity to spend a
great deal more than that and the
necessity to spend almost all Of it,
The bill now being debated before
congress is to the effect that every
one receiving an income of $4,000 or
more year, is subject to the tax. 1t
Is only natural that man who re
ceives $4,000 year will figure that
he should not be taxed any more than
the man receiving $4,000 and thea
the man who receives $4,000 will
claim that his expenses are necessar-
lily higher than some man who is re-
ceiving $4,000 year and so 1t will go
On down. 1t is very probable that there
will never be an income tax voted in
this country unless it will take in the
Incomes of all those who are regu-
larly employed, without respect to the
amount they receive.
The Cincinnati Enquirer closed an
exhaustive article on the subject OF
The income tax by stating that 1t was
no more legal to, tax man with an
income of St, 1000 per year than 1t was
10 tax man with an income of $500
per year. That if 1t was legal to do
one, it was legal to do the other and
VT was not legal to tax one without
Taxing the other.
MI One of the senators who opposes
z The income tax stated that because OF
The different conditions that can and
10 govern in the distribution Of diff
lerent peoples income, it is not right
10 tax people on their salary or In
rome. He stated that in many in
stances man on salary would be
the one who would pay the tax Of
The man who was living on an in
come. That two men might be ge..-
ling, say $4,000 salary or income. If
pne of these men is living in New
York City, Philadelphia or Boston, the
probability is that he would be spend
Ing every cent of 1t to live. Another
man might be getting the same in
come, but living in place where his
expenses were not necessarily as hign.
It is claimed 1t would not be right to
tax these two men the same amount
On their incomes.
Again two men might be living in
the same community and be getting
the same income, one might have a
number of people dependent upon his
income while the other might have
only himself to keep This would
again work hardship on the wrong
party.
Then again, suppose a landlord has
2 number of buildings he rents and