The Bridgeport evening farmer. [volume] (Bridgeport, Conn.) 1866-1917, 1911-02-22
MAYOR FISHER
ABLY DEFENDS
INCOME TAX
Senator Paddock PreSides at
important Legislative
Hearing
ALL TAXATION MUST Be
IMPERFECT; INCOME TAX,
LEAST FAULTY, he SAYS
Famous PubliciSt Calls Atten-
ton to Loss of Connect
cuts Prestige
Especial to The Farmer.)

CUT S ffeStIgc
Especial to The Farmer.) .
Hartford, Feb 22-Before the Com
mittee on Federal Relations, Of which
Senator Garry Paddock of Bridgeport
is chairman, Prof. Willard c. Fisher,
mayor of Middletown, Conn.,, account
ed among the greatest public:sts of
the country, made strong plea for
the ratification by the State of Con-
necticut of the 18th amendment to the
U. S. constitution having to do with
empowering the government to levy
an income tax.
Prof. Fisher was the accredited rep
resentative of the Central Labor I'm
ion of Hartford, an organization of s.
600 workingman. But in speaking for
them, as he explained to the commit
tee, he spoke primarily to give ex-
preston to his own views and to
place the committee in touch with
such information as he, a special stu
dent Of political economy for many
years. could give them as a result of
his long consideration of the SUBJ
ject.
eral advocates of the proposition,
among them Representative Joshua
Neither of Bridgeport, T. M. Crowley,
president Of the Workingmens Poll
t1cal League, representing 10000 work
ingmen and Rev. George w. Hull, a
Bristol clergyman identified with the
Socialist movement Francis H. Park
er, former representative and chair
man of the house committee of incor-
porations at the previous General As
sembly, made a long speech in opposi-
ton to the proposed ratification.
After Rep. Meltzer had treated the
legal aspects and claimed the consti-
tutionality of the proposed step, and
other speakers had dwelt briefly upon
the subject, Prof Fisher was intro
duced to the committee by Charles P.
Leonard, who spoke for the Hartford
Central Labor Union. Paying a tri-
butte to the high degree of efficiency of
the organization represented, Mayor
Fisher explained to the committee
that he spoke primarily for himself,
though he was at the hearing to voice
the views of the Hartford organiza-
ton. as we'll as his own.
All our forms of taxation. he argued,
are taxes, indirectly upon the income.
But the property system Of taxation,
he argued, was burdensome upon the
poor, and unfair. The income tax as
an economic proposition, he argued,
has been demonstrated as uniformly
good in many countries, under various
forms of government. True, it is a
human institution and as such, can
not reach perfection, but it is less
imperfect than any other system.
The speaker said he was armed with
a vast amount of statistics and In
formation upon the subject, which
was at the disposal Of any of the gen.
tlemen of the committee, or any 9TH
ers at the, hearing who desired to take
issue with his statements or who
sought enlightenment.
Awaiting inquiry, Mayor Fisher took
up the very common objection to the
proposed method of taxation-that 1t
is too inquisitoria1, and seeks to pry
into ones private affairs too deeply.
This argument he offset by producing
a regular tax blank such as is in use
in this State under the property tax
system, and he called attention to the
numerous headings, under which tax.
payers are asked as to the exact
amount of their possessions, how many
watches there are in the family,
whether gold or silver, etc.
The income tax he claimed, is more
effective, and less likely of evasion
than any other scheme. Three fourths
of the nations income is derived from
property taxation, he said. The re-
manning quarter comes from the Gus
toms and the internal revenue. The
two last are upon great necessities of
life, and the consumers suffer. The
property tax works hardship upon the
poor property owner. The assessors,
he asserted, are almost invariably
found levying pretty nearly full val
uation upon the small property own
err, and allowing the larger property
owner to escape with less than his
just share.
Critic sing, in passing. the customs
and internal revenue systems. he call
ed attention to the fact that the cigar
he held, very poor" was his charac-
terization is levied upon just as much
as the fifty cent cigar that occasion
ally he views with respect from
great distance. The man who can't
afford to pay for the good cigar, how
ever, must contribute through the
smoking of the single cigar just as
heavily to the governmental tribute.
This is because quality doesn't count,
under the prevailing scheme of rev.
enue.
Another common objection that Prof.
Fisher sought to controvert was that
if the proposed income tax became
effective, Connecticut might be forced
to pay more than other States. Even
SO he argued. such an argument is
unpatriotic. For if the system is just
why should Connecticut complain if it
be found that the State is so situat-
ed as to be amenable to a heavier tax
than the sister States?
DelVlHS INTO the STATISTICS OF IOrn1-
err years, he recalled the rate paid
by Connecticut in 1865, when the pop
ulation of the State represented La
per cent Of the total population Of the
country, and the State paid 1.96 per
cent of the total tax of the country.
At the same period Massachusetts, in
cluded 4.76 per cent of the population
and the proportion paid by the State
of the National tax was 1919 per cent
Rhode Island with 81 per cent of the
population paid 1.S5 per cent. Of the
tax.
Connecticut has upwards of 100000
tax payers, no one knows just how
many said he. If annual incomes
of less than $4,000 were exempted from
liability under the income tax not
more than four to five thousand would
be affected. Back in 1867 when the ex-
empted incomes were those less than
$500 there were but $500. Under the last
census if $1,000 were the exemption
limit, there would be 1000 in Connec-
ticut liable today to pay and If the
limit were fixed at $1,000, there would
be about four, five or six thousand af-
fected.
Prof. Fisher called attention to the