Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1915-12-09
1.6s3.s15 s37,s4S, $500

Means that the Democratic party
failed to keep its prediction pledge
/ to the American people for the elirnin-
alton of tariff subsidies to special In
| terests, and that Il surrenders its eco
nomic position on the tariff to the Re
publican party, who for years have
contended that the tariff on sugar was
q revenue measure. and have endeav-
1 ored to conceal from the people the
fact that every time the government
received a dollar, because of the tax
on sugar, another dollar was, IN Ike
manner, extracted from them and
handed over to the sugar interests for
division. Is the Democratic party now
going to take the same position in OPP
position to the expressed wish of the
| people?
There are now too many dealers
handling sugar In all parts of the
country, who In former years may
have been ignorant, but who know
that every time they purchase q BAR
rel of sugar its cost to them is in
creased over $3.50 because Of the
duty, half Of which increase goes TO
the government and the other half to
the sugar interests. It is not possible
to longer confuse them on this point.
Originally a tariff on sugar was
revenue measure, but, as Indicated by
the above figures, it has now beconie
an indirect subsidy" measure, and
should not be allowed to masquerade
under another guise.
"A Purely Revenue Tax on Sugar
Means that the United States gov
eminent will receive the entire
amount paid by The people because OF
the tax, instead of its being shared
with the domestic producers as Is now
the case An ideal example OF the
manner in which this can be accom-
plished is before us in the revenue tax
adopted by the large sugar producing
countries in Burope-France, Ger
many, Austria, Belgium, Holland, Den
mark, etc. For the purpose OF raising
revenue, their law provides that all
sugars consumed, whether of foreign
or domestic origin, shall share IN pro-
ducing this revenue. This is an equit-
able revenue measure, and has the
virtue of increasing as consumption
increases, in contrast to an import tax
which decreases as imports decrease.
For us to adopt similar tax would
yield the government large amount
Of revenue, and would be very simple
to collect at the source, only requir-
ing the checking of production and
imports, and the rendering Of an in
voice for the amount due. Such tax
Of one-half cent per pound on all SUI
gars consumed would produce S42,-
900, 600 annually as against yield I'M
der the present tariff of SAC, 900
less SS,000,000 in drawbacks, and
would increase the price to the con-
sumer by but one-half cent per pound
instead of one cent per pound as under
the present tariff, thus reducing the
American sugar bill s42,000,000.
A tax of one cent per pound would
yield $S4, ZOO, 900 in revenue as against
sac, 600, 900 less S8,000,000 in draw
backs under the present tariff, and
would not increase the price to the
consumer any more than the present
tay. =. p
This would work out about as fol.
lows: ...-.-... 49,. j..
4 Cost Rev. Derived
Tax to People by Govt.
1-2c per h.. .S42 ,000,0o0 $4,000. 900
1c per h.. -. S4,0o0,000 $4,000, 900
Present tariff .- ~....l ri
4 lie per h.. ;. 100000 $4,000, 900
This does not conflict with the tar
in views expressed in the passage of
the free sugar bill No special inter
ests would be indirectly subsidized
under such a measure. the purpose of
which was purely to raise revenue for
the government and therefore requires
no apology. @~"s l." Il -. =. T.
Why is it not therefore both good
business and good politics to adopt
purely revenue measure on sugar THAI