Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1909-09-22
Demand for Income Tax.


ing.
Demand for Income Tax.
at the Auditorium. after a few pre-
liminary remarks, Mr.. Taft touched brief
1y on the tariff. saying that, while a re-
vision had been deemed essential. there
was also a deficit in the Treasury to be
met. This partly will be met by d cut
Of s40.0O0,OOO to $5O.OOO.OCO in the ap-
partly by income from the new corpora
ton tax law. Mr.. Taft said he had ia
vored, at first, an inheritance tax, but
the objection that the state, had pre-
empted that field had sufficient weight to
continued: - 90 rrl6a
"A part Of the republicans and ali Of
the democrats of the Senate united in
pressing for consideration a general in
come tax on individuals throughout the
1t could be made to that income tax law
which had once been considered by the
Supreme Court some ten years ago. and
which was held to be unconstitutional
by vote of to 4. It was conceded
that the tax would probably raise $780,
100000 to 500 .OOO, 900. which was far in
excess Of the needs of the government
il the tariff bill was to retain its general
form as proposed and so produce reve-
nues which should be reasonably ex-
pected.
Our friends. the democrats, then
favored the income tax with a view to
substituting 1t for the tariff as an in.
come-producing measure, thus minimiz-
ing the effect of the tariff in promoting
the industries Of the country. In other
words. the passage Of the income tax
bill would have lent support probably to
the proposition to have a tariff for reve-
nue. only, and would have interfered with
the protective policy to which the repub-
lican party is pledged.
Unwise to Clash With Court.
Zone further objection to the income
tax amendment was that it had been de-
clared unconstitutional by the Supreme
Court, and to invoke q second decision
upon that issue was to question the uni
formity of the decisions of the Supreme
Court and to drag the court into q politi-
cal discussion which. whatever its de-
cision, could not make for its standing
as an impartial tribunal before the peo-
pie. 1t indicated a diversity of view De-
tween Congress and the court-two CO.
ordinate branches-with reference to the
constitutionality of the law, which it
statute.
But the income tax amendment SEEM
ed quite likely to pass by vote of all the
democrats and a sufficient number Of
republicans. Therefore, those who op-
posed the income tax amendment looked
ABOUT to see If a compromise could not
De 1ound-a compromise which would sat-
isly enough republicans favoring the in
come tax to prevent the passage of that
amendment. Such compromise was
round In the present corporation tax and
also the joint resolution already referred
70, proposing an amendment of the fed
eral Constitution Of the states authoriz-
ing the general government to impose an
iuconne tax without apportioning it as a
oirect tax according to the populatIoo
OF the states.
The provisions for the corpora t;on TOW
IN the bill exempt all corporations WHOSE
net income does not exceed $1,000 It is.
therefore, In effect an income tar. tbat
Is. 1t taxes earnings actaully made -
Is tax upon success and not failure
Puts Premium on Perjury.
1.-THE most Objectionable feature ~ o
direct income tax Is the premium unon
perjury which 1t offers to those who are
willing to conceal their income-a matter
not at al difficult to do-and who thus
subject to q much heavier proportionate
burden those who are conscientious in
making their returns and who pay their
tax, as the law intended. So great was
this evil In the levy OF an income tax in
England that when that tax was imposed
ed here in the so-called income tax
amendment bill. 1t was found that the
proceeds OF the tax at 10 per cent were
less than the proceeds Of an income tax
Of per cent imposed as our corporation
tax Is. not upon the individuals directly,
their hands. This is a practical argu-
ment in favor OF q corporation income
tax as against an individual income tax,
that IL altogether unanswerable.