The state herald., 1912-03-29
OF NC REAL BENEFIT
TAKING TAX OFF SUGAR WILL
NOT cHEAPEN THE PRODUCT.
The Foreign Grower and the Middle
Man VIII Simply Add That Much
to Their Profits-consumer
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 s52.00O,O00 a year
revenue by imposing l per cent tax
on all Incomes in excess of $4,000 a
year.
The income tax is not called by that
name. The house Democrats seek to
evade the Supreme courts ruling with
respect to the meaning of the consti-
tutional provision as to direct taxes"
by calling It an Excise tax" and ap-
pealing to the present corporation tax
as precedent,
There is, of course. theoretically and
as a matter of abstract Justice, no OBJ
lection to an income tax and there is
much to be said In its favor. 1t simply
requires wealth to contribute to the
support Of government in proportion
To the protection 1t may and does re
quire from government.
In the practical situation produced
by the demand for reduction of tariff
taxation 1t is necessary for the govern
ment to turn to other sources of rev.
enue to make good the loss. So much
money must be taken from the people
somehow 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 preferential position in our
sugar market. with pious professions
of desire to help her people to pros.
perity. 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,
ocratic party now puts Filipinos. who
arc 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.
or course the Sugar trust has nc
friends. No other large industrial cor
poration has such record of fraud
on the government 1t is popular to
kick the Sugar trust.
/ And II is figured that II will be a
winning argument" for the Demo
cratic party on the stump to be able
to assert that II at least tried to take
a tax on the poor mans breakfast Ia
FL and TO lower the high cost oi
living"
Already promises are made that
when this bill becomes law sugar
/ viii be cent and half a pound
cheaper" and that the people will be
saved si07 100000 year" or about a
dollar head.
II is n perfectly safe prediction that
I putting sugar on the free list will have
I no such effect on the price OF sugar
1 that the cost OF sugar TO consumers
will not be materially reduced by this
measure-that by means OF II the aver.
| age American family will not be en-.
nbled TO put 81 year more into the
savings bank.
We may understand this by Just re.
membering what did not happen when
the import tax was taken on 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 Il
In their own pockets. And the same
thing will happen with respect 10 the
| import tax on sugar
The only way In which the price OF
sugar can be permanently reduced IL
by producing II more cheaply on our
own territory. That cannot b. done by
taking away the advantage given by
the tariff 10 our home and colonial
sugar growers.
Under the Democratic proposal We
viii pay about the same prices for
sugar as we do now. Some viii refuse
10 believe this. let them wait and
SOC.