The Idaho Springs siftings-news., 1912-03-30
OF NC REAL Benefit
TAKING TAX OFF SUGAR WILL
NOT cHEAPEN THE PRODUCT.
Tho Foreign Grower and the Middle
Man Will Simply Add That Much
to Their Profits-Consumers
viii Pay the Same.

The house Democrats have decided
to support bill putting imported
sugar on the free list and to make
good the loss OF s52,000.000 a year
revenue by imposing l per cent tax
ON all Incomes in excess OF $4,000
year.
The income tax is not called by that
name. The house Democrats seek to
ovade the Supreme courts ruling with
respect to the meaning of the consti-
tutdonal provision as to direct taxes"
by calling 1t an Excise tax" and ap-
pealing to the present corporation tax
~ precedent.
There is, of course, theoretically and
- matter Of abstract justice, no OBJ
lection to an income tax and there is
much TO be said In It's favor It simply
requires wealth to contribute to the
support Of government in proportion
to the protection it may and does re-
quire from government.
In the practical situation produced
by the demand for reduction of tariff
taxation it is necessary for the govern
ment to turn to other sources OF rev
money must be taken from the people
som chow or other to meet the ex-
| penses of government. II the constitu-
tional objections can be met, an in
come tax is probably as good a means
as any.
As regards the free sugar proposal,
there are some rather peculiar matters
to be considered.
| Only a few years ago we gave to
Cuba n preferential position in our
sugar market. with pious professions
of desire to help her people to pros
perty That benefit the Democratic
party proposes to take away.
| Less than two years ago We gave
the Philippines practically free access
to our sugar market with more pious
professions of benevolence. The Dem
ocrat!c party now puts Filipinos, who
are under our flag, on level with the
Japanese and other foreign sugar
| growers toward whom we have no ma
tional duties. This is bad faith.
| OF course the Sugar trust has no
/ friends No other large industrial cor
poration has such a record of fraud
on the government. 1t is popular to
kick the Sugar trust.
And 1t is figured that 1t will be a
winning argument" for the Demo-
| cratic party on the stump to be able
to assert that it at least tried to take
q tax off the poor mans breakfast ta-
BILE" and to ''lower the high cost of
living"
/ Already promises are made that
when this bill becomes a law sugar
will be cent and half a pound
cheaper" and that "the people will be
saved S107 100000 a year" or about a
dollar head.
/ 1t is perfectly safe prediction that
putting sugar on the free list will have
no such effect on the price of sugar
that the cost of sugar to consumers
will not be materially reduced by this
measure-that by means of 1t the aver
F age American family will not be en-
abled to put IS a year more into the
savings bank.
( We may understand this by Just re-
membering what did not happen when
the Import tax was taken off coffee
years ago, and when the import tax
! imposed on tea during the Spanish
war was removed In neither case did
{ the price to consumers come down and
stay down.
The foreign growers and the middle
men simply divided the tax and put 1t
in their own pockets. And the same
thing will happen with respect to the
import tax on sugar
The only way in which the price of
sugar can be permanently reduced Is
by producing 1t more cheaply on our
own territory. That cannot be done by
taking away the advantage given by
the tariff to our home and colonial
sugar growers.
Under the Democratic proposal we
will pay about the same prices for
sugar as we do now. Some will refuse
to believe this. Let. them walt and