The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1909-07-05
IT'S VICIOUS, R0ARS
BORAH OF PLAN TO
INTERPRETATIONS
Idaho Senator Gives Seven Reasons
Why Administration Measure
Is Bad and Hints 1t Will Be
Killed In Committee.
House Must Approve Plan-Tafts
Project Is Not Tax On
Wealth.
BY gibson GARDNER.

The nearest thing 10 crime that
congress has yet undertaken II com
NIT Is this proposed corporation tax.
The speaker was Senator Borah OF
Idaho These new seantors-and espe
cially the ones from the West-have a
frank way OF calling spade a spade
/ was looking for lutte frank opln'
ion on the subject OF the adminlctra
Tons tail TO the tariff bill. | suggest
ed that the language was rather
strong.
No. il isn't said he. It's Vicious.
The measure is vicious. Il isn't hon
est. Ii isn't frank, Ii isa what II
preteuds To be. 1t is bad in seven dill
ferent ways. and | am against II in
all seven
Can YOU tell briefly and in words
Jf one syllable why II is bad?'
The Idaho senator said
NO J. II is not tax ON veal n.
though il pretends To be
No. . The burden OF tn tax can
and will be transferred Immediately
To the consumer, and will rot be paid
by the corporation.
NO. g. 1t is of questionable con
stitutionality All the arguments
against re-enactment of the income
tax are valid against this; and thea
some.
NO, I The law will add nothing
TO the publicity Of corporation bust
ness II will not enlarge the powers
which the government now has under
the interstate commerce act and The
act which created the bureau OF cor
porations.
NO. ). II discrlminates between
the various small corporations. tax
Ing some and eXemptng others
NO D. II places certain legal
sanction ON the holding COMPANY 6Ld
the holding company is one OF til" m
struments for creating monopolies
and trusts
NO. I. 1t is brought in 10 defeat
legitimate and proper tax on wealth
that is, tax on incomes.
Those are some Of the reasons
against the passage OF this proposed
aw."
(Which do you consider the most
important ,"
Corporation Will Not Pay Tex
well. | think the most important
me for the public 20 keep in mild
is the fact that the corporation viii
not pav the tax: that is. the big
portion will. In the competitive field
il will not be possible for the corpora
ton TO transfer the tax. Let ne L.
mstrato. Suppose IL is a little cream
cry company out in Wisconsin earn
Ing $4,000 a year There are q lot
Of little creamery companies and
some of them are not Incorporated.
The ones not Incorporated won't pay
any tax under the law lncorpola;ed
ones will have To pay But how
about the United states Express Co
and the Western Union Telegraph
Co. and the railroad corporations?
30 YOU suppose they will pay the TAX?
Nv no means. They will simply trans
fer It. am not INDUCING in prophecy
am simply calling attention to what
has taken place under similar circum-
stances i'm the past In 1923 this ques-
ton came up In that year certain
war taxes were placed on certain OF
the large corporations like the war
revenue stamps on kilograms, express
receipts, and so forth. Did the tclt-
graph companies pay? Not ~ the
least. The person sending the tele-
gram put the stamp on, and IT was 50
with all the stamp taxes levied
through these big quasi.public c"rpor-
atoms Being practically monopoleS,
they were able to do this. They "cre
not in competitive fields. Thelr SIT
uation was different from that Of the
creamery company or the little cor
noration whose prices are kept down
by competition.
But more than that The big cor
porations even went to the supreme
court and got a ruling that congress
could not keep them from transferring
the tax TO the consumer They got a
iuling that It would be an infringement
nj the freedom of contract. Now. do
Won see why the big corporation is
not fghting this tax on corporations p
Then you don't think that the big
corporations are against this form OF
taxation?"
Il know they are not. And II | did
not know otherwise, ! have Mr.. Al
drich's word for It, He says they are
not"
Then this bill is popular with those
who think that il will simply be an
ether way of placing the burden on
the consumer If Ii amounts to any
thing at all?
"There is no doubt OF IT, | am
convinced that Mr. Aldrich is firmly
and irrevocably opposed 10 any legis.
Iation which will result IN placing a
tax on wealth. He is willing to &c.
cept this bill In lieu OF genuine
income tax amendment because IL
does not put any tax OH wealth.
"You said this would be as question.
able from constitutional point of
view as the income taxi"
Get Into Same Difficulty.
And that's a fact They talk about
enacting a law suit. They will be up
against the same thing that was a
stumbling block in the income tax
case. They get into this mess oy
trying to exempt the earnings Of cor
porations which are the holdings If
other corporations. OF course. it's all
right/to try TO avoid double taxation,
which would not be fair but they i'm
nediately get into the same difficult
which made the supreme court rule As
II did I'm the Pollock case. They start
of with a proposition that 1t is tax
l. D H.. l..4 IL