The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1913-04-09
THE INCOME TAX PROPOSED.

lAA hoI
By reason of the estimate that the
cuts in customs duties as proposed in
The tariff bill newly introduced would
make a deficit of $S0,0ao.000, the
Democratic party managers have felt
the necessity Of introducing bill to
tax incomes. But VIC believe that the
basis upon which this estimate Of re.
duced revenue is made is fallacious,
for with the cuts in customs duties as
proposed there would undoubtedly he
livery great increase in imports. In fact,
THAT is the avowed object of making
cuts, TO foster imports so that Amcrr-
can prices would he cut down accord.
liucly. We believe that these prices
would be cut down as far as the port
of entry is concerned. but we do not
believe that they would be cut down
so far as the retail purchaser jG con
cerned.. But, however that may be, the
basic idea of making these cuts in the
tariff duties is to foster imports; but
in the fostering of imports, of course.
there would be a very large increase
| III lut pUf AiN'h''.c VA WV
aggregate of every class of merchandise
imported Let us say that under the
lprcsent law the Government would re-
ceivc a million dollars of revenue
dav on imports of three millions in
value Of goods. Under the proposed
schedules there would be perhaps SIX
millions in value of imported goods,
! and the Government s revenues would
| be million and a half. If the cut in
duties averages 30 per cent and the
Imports were doubled we would theu
get more revenue from imports than
we do now; point that seems to
| have been overlooked in the estimates
of the effect Of the reduction on tariff
rates It is quite possible. therefore,
that instead Of having a deficit of $50,
100000 there might be a surplus Of Gus
toms receipts under the reduced tariffs
| by reason Of the greater imports or
course, these imports would cut off the
market for American goods to very
large extent and would hamper the
manufacturing interests Of this country
| In large deg'cc, save only where those
interests could be maintained by com
binations and agreements for the con
troll of the markets, the manufacturers
controlling the imports.
Losing sight of this important Gle
ment, the Democrats estimate that
their tariff cuts would make deficit of
$50, 100000 in the Government S rove.
nues. Accordingly they propose TO
make this up by tax on incomes, eX-
empting ali incomes below $4,000 a
wear. and they make the rate of taxa.
tion eXperimentallv oppressive. 1t is
an unexpected turn for the Democrats
to make. for thev have been vocferous
in proclaiming that the expenditures
have been altogether too lavish under
Republican rule. and that if the Demo
Gratis were given opportunity they
would cut down the expenditures Of the
Government to an economical basis.
This is precisely what they did not do
in the recent Congress, where they
had an immense majority in the House
of Representatives. which originates all
appropriations. There was no reason
for the country to expect that an in
come tax would be imposed since this
is new and an oppressive form OF
taxation that ought not TO be called
into effect save only in some great Gov
ornamental crisis. That was the un-
lderstanding of those who in Congress
urged the Constitutional amendment
permitting the imposition of the in.
H.. .
they approved it as an emergency
measure. and that ii was proper TO in
vest the Government with the power TO
levy such tax when extreme need
called for IL If there had been any
idea that this tax would he levied i'm
mcdately, and merely as a matter of
routine or of party policy, there would
have been no such amendment agreed
| to in Congress in the first place, nor
would the State Legislatures have
ratified it as they did, except on the
theory that it was 10 he an emergency
tax reserved for great National need.
We notice that the tax on corpora
tioos is also 20 be continued rs well
as the income tax. This undoubtedly
would impose a double tax in many
cases, as wherever an individual owns
stock in corporation that paid the
corporation income tax, and then he is
obliged 10 pay a personal income tax
on the money that he may get from his
investment in the corporation. 1t is
clearly double tax upon him. and thus
is obnoxious. and should not be per
mitted, This raises in fact a question
of constitutiouality, which is likely to
be threshed out in full in the courts, in
lease the income tax passes and the at.