The Brinkley argus., 1917-06-15

are definitely established:
 How Taxes Should De Apportionsd.
 Q) The burden of taxes must be spread as far as possible over the whole community so as to cause each individual to share in the sacrifices ac- cording to his ability to pay and ac- eording to his share in the Government
 a Taxes on consumption. which arc necessarily borne by the community at large, should be imposed as far as DOS sibe on articles of quasi-luxury rather than on those of necessity.
 3) Excises should be imposed as far as possible upon commodities in the hands of the final consumer rather than upon the articles which serve pri marily as raw material for further production.
 (4) Taxes upon business should be imposed as far as possible upon net earnings rather than upon gross re- ceipts or capital invested
 c O Taxes upon income which will necessarily be severe should be both differentiated and graduated That is, there should be distinction between earned and unearned incomes and there should be higher rate upon the larger incomes. It is essential. however not to make the income rate so excessive as to lead to evasion, administrative difficulties, or to the more fundamental objections which have been urged above. '
 @ The excess profits which are due to the war constitute the most obvious and reasonable source of revenue dur- ing war times. But the principle upon which these war-prot1t taxes are laid must be equitable in theory and easily calculable in practice
 The Proposed Income Tax.
 The additional income tax as passed by the House runs up to a rate of GO per cent. This is sum unheard of in the history of civilized society It must be remembered that it was only after the first year of the war that Great Britain increased her income tax to the maximum of 34 per cent, and that even now in the fourth year of the war the income tax does not exceed 421s per cent.
 It could easily be shown that tax with rates on moderate incomes sub stantially less than in Great Britain, and on the larger incomes about as high, would yield only slightly less than the $532. 100000 originally estimated in the House bill.
 It is to be hoped that the Senate will reduce the total rate on the highest in- comes to 34 per cent, or at most to 40 per cent, and that at the same time it will reduce the rate on the smaller in comes derived from personal or profes- sional earnings.
 If tho war continues we shall have to depend more and more upon the in- come tax. By imposing excessive rates now we are not only endaneerino the future, but are inviting all manner of difficulties which even Great Britain has been able to escape.
 Conclusion.
 The House bill contains other funda- mental defects which may be summed up as follows:
 CD It pursues an erroneous principle in imposing retroactive taxes.
 (2) It selects an unjust and unwork- able criterion for the excess-prof1ts tax.
 (3) It proceeds to an unheard-of height in the income tax. (4) It imposes unwarranted burdens upon the consumption of the commit nifty.
 (5) It is calculated to throw business into confusion by levying taxes on gross receipts instead of upon commodities.
 (6) It fails to make a proper use of stamp taxes.
 @ It follows an unscientific system in it's flat rate on imports. (S) N includes a multiplicity of pet ty and unlucrative taxes, the vexatious- ness of which is out of all proportion to the revenue they produce. The fundamental lines on which the House bill should be modified are sum- med up herewith:
 (D The amount of new taxation should be limited to $1, ,250, ,O00OO0-or at the outset to $1,500. 100000. To do more than this would be as unwise as it is unnecessary. To do even this would be to do more than has ever been done by any civilized Govern- ment in time of stress @ The excess-profts ta1 based upon . sound system ought to yield ahsue S5O0, ,0O0 GOO
 C4 The income-tax schedule ought ts be revised with lowering of the rsess on earned incomes bslow $10.0o0. and wtch an analogous isw~inS of the Y.tes on the Mghes iDeO0eA Q e nde to exceed 84 per cent A cassfua eel cuiattou shows that an ineo0s tA3 of ths kind would yield ssms el6o.oe0- 0C0 sA1aNanaI.
 @ The tnx oo vhisAU and tDoeceo oueht to rsmain approximately q It fs. with yield of about $zo00o0O0.
 These three taxes, together with ths stamp tax at even the low rate oe the House btll, and with an improved eu- tomobtle tax, will yield over $1.260,- 0O0, 900. which is tho amount of money thought desirable.