The Washington herald., 1915-07-07
Problems in Taxation.

The personal income tax produced more than
S. 600 900 for the last fiscal year, increase
OF SI3oooo 900 over the amount for the fiscal year
1914. These figures are encouraging to the Treas
ury officials and realize the estimates of Secretary
McAdoo. The people of New York, Pennsylvania
and Illinois paid nearly S24,oooooo, or more than
one-half the total. This realized the predictions
OF those who were the champions of the income
tax amendment to the Constitution. They said
it would make the large industrial States pay a
larger proportion of the cost of government. 1t
does. These three great industrial States also
paid $I7,S55,ooo OF the corporation tax, nearly
one-haf that total. Taking the total income tax,
amounting to S7o,S2S675, New York, Pennsylvania
and Illinois paid S4r,66o,474 With one-fourth
of the population OF the United States, these three
States paid more than one-half the total revenues
collected under the Federal income tax law
These figures are significant in connection
with the convention in session in Atlantic
City to promote the propaganda for another con-
stitutonal amendment for national prohibition.
Such an amendment would cut off S25oooo,ooo
Federal revenues received from the liquor
trade. The advocates OF such an amendment con-
tend that this $25oooo,oo revenue could be
raised by increasing the income tax. 1t might,
and New York, Pennsylvania and Illinois would
then have to pay than one-half, about
ST 100000 in addition to the S42ooo,ooo they
pay.
If prohibition will enable the people in those
three States to pay $4,000 900 income tax more
easily than they pay $42,ooo,ooo we'll and
good That is the argument of the proponents of
this prohibition amendment. The prohibition
States ought to furnish the figures to sustain this
contention. Do they? There eighteen proh-
bition States, and they have one-fourth OF the
l,,. c. ~.
of S7o,oooooo income tax less than one-tenth.
In this total also included four nonprohibtion
States because they are combined with certain
prohibition States in districts. These
twenty-five States paid $4,7s5ooo corporation tax
and $2,472o 900 personal income tax. We are told
almost daily that the people of Iowa, Kansas
Oklahoma Washington, Oregon, Colorado and in
the South prosperous, that they have bumper
corn, wheat, and cotton crops, that their manufac
turing plants are busy and that they have larger
per capita wealth than the great industrial States
OF the East, but they pay less than one-tenth of
the Federal income tax, while about the same
number of people in New York, Pennsylvania and
Illinois pay more than one-half of that tax
II is a poor argument that cannot hitch up
great prosperity and representation in Congress
with fair taxation. If prohibition has brought pros
perity to this one-fourh OF the population in the
South and West and they want to increase the
income tax to the loss of $4,000 900 now
received from the liquor trade, they ought to de-
wise kind Of income tax that will enable
them to pay more than one-tenth of the total
fair share of the cost of government. But it
is barely possible that the promoters OF the income
tax amendment to the Constitution really meant
what they said. that its purpose to make the
big industrial States pay the cost of the Federal
II - e ,1e u.
tional prohibition is another scheme with the
same end in view