The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1913-03-01
PUT TAX ON RICH.
Wealth Alone Should Help Poor
Frank Russell SAYS.
Only Fair to Believe Their Op-
pOrtunities Greater.
PAUPERISM EASILY AVOIDED.
No Money Should Be Given
Away, He Says.
Proposed Plan Would Provide
All With Chance.
EASILY AVOIDED.

A special tax on the very rich for
general welfare institutions is pro-
posed by Frank Z. Russell, county at
torney of Rush county.
when the financial opportunities
are equal among all citizens then no
taxes should be levied upon the prop
erty OF one and not proportionately
upon the property of another. But in
our nation when some men and cor
porationS are possessed of wealth in
amounts varying from 10 million dol
lars to 500 million dollars while some
other men have not the means of buy
ing food, raiment and shelter, the OBJ
portunlt1es are not equal" Mr.. Rus
sell says.
The child of the rich man takes up
the battle of life armed with great
learning and special training for the
work he intends to do, while the child
or the poor man begins his struggle
before he energies out of childhood,
with no weapons except such as ma
ture gives him, and these less fit for
service because of the conditions I'M
DER which the child has lived; and the
man who comes into the industrial or
commercial world with a great for
tune to use in furthering his designs
mas StupendOuS advantage over the
one who comes with only his brain
and hands.
Duty Is to Protect Weak.
80 equality of opportunity is not
fact, and it is no longer just to use it
as theory on which to base our sys-
tenn of adjusting the responsibilities
and burdens incident to the existence
OF good government.
1t IS the proper privilege of gov
eminent to curtail the rights of any
citizen when it is necessary to do so
for the general welfare, and it is also
a proper duty for government to
the condition of the weak
and the unfortunate in every way to
make of him a better citizen
Great wealth in 10 hands oor
tam men and corporations vests in
them power such as they may use
vastly to benefit themselves. The gov
eminent has made it possible for them
10 possess and thus use this power,
hehce IN return the government may
require them to assume unusual bur-
dens for the support of that govern
ment. No more approp riate burden
may be placed upon them than that
OF providing funds for the ameliora-
possess so little power to benefit
themselves. No dollar should be TAX
en- from the hand of a rich man and
placed in poor mans hand, for that
would confer but little benefit, and
would tend to make the poor man less
self-reliant than before; but a tax |
should be collected from the wealthy |
TO provide funds for educational, san |
tary and medical purposes and also |
EN- ployment-that is, for the govern
Tax Rich for Benefit of Poor. |
such a tax might be termed a !
provident tax, and if imposed would |
an appropriate burden for |
wealth to bear
Many conservative thinkers will |
eaIl this proposition revolutionary, be- |
cause it seeks to take money from the |
rich and give it's benefits to the poor
It will be said it seeks to take from
he man who earns and gives to the
nan who loafs. 1t will be denounced |
is a proposal in violation of the law
IF the survival of the fittest' In a |
certain measure these criticisms will |
>e true, but yet far from sufficient to
condemn the plan under all the facts
Us they exist.
1T is not an absolute right that any
nan should own all the property that
lie desires, but only such right is his in
70 far that he may acquire all he may
iced for providing food raiment
helter, education and with which to |
ender reasonable service to his fam
ly, his country and to his God. When
lie has wealth beyond the ability to
airly discharge these natural ends of
ife, then the proper view is that he
holds such excess as a privilege only,
nd that the government may require
lin to surrender the benefits of that
privilege as the general welfare may