Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1911-03-29

morning, from its editorial. and it says
this: ION one point this Democratic
Legislature will be open to just criticism
if it fails to take the action that is ex-
pected and to which as representing the
Democratic party it stands pledged. an
action to which the minority as well as
the majority of this Legislature stands
pledged in their platform. Both parties
were pledged 10 the ratification of the fed
eral income tax amendment That pledge
ought to be kept by the Democratic party.
That pledge was made in good faith and
It ought to be kept in good faith. 1t should
be kept by both parties OF the Legislature.
If il is not kept the Democratic party will
have 10 answer for it. With them rests
the power TO ratify the amendment. II
they fail to do SO with them must rest the
rcspon sibiity. And as | said, 1t is up
to you Democrats.
Mr.. DAVIES: Mr.. Speaker with the
consent of the Chair | desire TO yield to
the gentleman from Lisbon Falls in order
that the views of the person who presented
the minority report may be SCI forth.
Mr.. PLUMMER: Mr.. Speaker, in the
consideration of this matter itself, for it
appears TO be taken for granted that we
are 10 adopt some form OF an income tax.
personally | shall vote as reported in the
committee, for the ratification of the amend
ment to the national constitution. and the
reasons for that will give later. But
there are before This body for action not
necessarily the proposition of whether or
not We will have Il State income tax or
whether we shall have national income
tax. in addition TO that is the proposition
OF whether We will have any income tax at
all. That is to say. there are three prop
ositions before US, practically Tor the first
time, one is that may adopt the State
income tax. the second is that we may
ratify the amendment to the constitution
providing for national income tax. and the
third is that We may reject them all Now
nasmuch as all these proposition are prop
crty before us it may not be improper to
investigate into the question OF taxation
a little more deeply than has SO far been
done by any member speaking on this sub
ject or even by any member of the Legs
laturc so far. al least TO any great extent.
We have at the present time as you
know nationally tariff. We have
tariff taxes and internal .eTenue taxes.
poor. Generally speaking. they are APP
portioned to the amount of sugar Il
man eats or the kind and quality and
amount of clothing that he wears or
the jewelry that he wears. Then We
have internal revenue taxes which bear
on different individuals somewhat il.
proportion to the liquor that they
drink or the tobacco that they use.
In the State we have Il general prop
erty tax which taxes land and houses
and machinery and buildings and goods.
livestock and most everything that YOU
can think of We have poll tax we
have. a railroad tax, we have telephone
taxeSN insurance taxes. a tax on saw
ing4<banks, on pool and billiard rooms
we have victualers licenses, we have
dog taxes, and finally this proposition
to put tax on the people merely be-
cause they happen to own and operate
automobiles. Now there is manifestly
none of these taxes any recog
milton of any proper principle by which
they may be placed. They arc merely
a heterogeneous mass of indiscr:m-
mate taxes levied mere!. FOR the pur-
pose of revenue and without regard
to any IDEA of Justice in their appli-
cation. At the hearing something was
said about the matter of their
being fair taxes. the tax on
the properties increased being a
FAR - increase. but on being
questioned those who made the state
ment to us were unable to say by what
standard they were to determine any
n iptIar TO m no fair I'd
it was fair compared with some other
tax. For these reasons, Mr.. Speaker. |
would like to go briefly into this ques-
ton and sec whether there might be
some standard by which we could test
the validity and propriety of any tax
and see whether the income tax falls
within that. There are SO far as
know. only two forms of enterprises in
society, and these two forms differ
chiefly in respect TO the method by
which they collect their revenue. There
are two forms. There arc charitabl
organizations which we may say are
typlfled by the church. There are bust
ness organizations which are typified
by Srocers and druggists and BARRIERS
and physicians and railroads and all
that class. There is this difference in
the method by which they collect the
revenue and it is the principal differ
ence between them. The charitable or
ganization collect their funds by gifts
and through solicitation. The sub
scribers are supposed to give according
to these different means. according to
the amount that they think they can
afford to give, but a business collects
its revenue on Il business basis. 1t
sells its services to every man. the
same service at the same price. to the
high and low. to the rich and poor.
Now the same is true of course of the
grocer and the railroad. There is this
difference in this collection of the reve-
nue., that in the case of a charita Bile
organization, if any man contributes
so much he is only in honor bound to
pay. There is no compulsion. In the
case of any business organization, if
any man contracts debt he is
compelled by society to pay it,
Now the government falls at the
present time under neither OF these
classes. 1t is a hybred. 1t is neither
FISH. flesh foul nor good red herring
If it is charitable organization it
should pass the hat or it should take
SI u