The Manchester journal. [volume] (Manchester, Vt.) 1861-current, 1917-06-14


90 The excess profits which are du,
to the war constitute the most obviou,
and reasonable source OF revenue dur
Ing war times, But the principle upor
which these war profit taxes are IaiC
must be equitable in theory and easily
calculabe in practice,
The Proposed Income Tax.
! The additional income tax as passed
| by the House runs up to rate of 90
| per cent. This Is n sum unheard OF In
| the history Of civilized society. 1t must
be remembered that 1t was only after
the first year OF the war that Great
Britain increased her income tax to the
maximum Of 81 per cent, and that
even now in the fourth year Of the war
the income tax does not exceed 4212
per cent.
1t could easily be shown that a tax
with rates on moderate incomes sub.
staItially less than In Great Britain,
and on the larger incomes about as
high, would yield only slightly less than
the $3.50 100000 originally estimated in
the House bill
1t Is to be hoped that the Senate will
reduce the total rate on the highest In.
comes to "a per cent. or at most to 40
per cent. and that at the same time 1t
Will reduce the rate on the smaller In.
comes derived from personal or profes
sional earnings
" the war continues we shall have to
depend more and more upon the in
come tax. BY imposing excessive rates
now we are not only endanpering 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-
defects which may be summed /
up as follows
ID 1t pursues an erroneous principle
in imposing retroactive taxes.
t2l 1t selects an unjust and unwork-
able criterion for the excess-profts tax
90 1t proceeds to an unheard of
height in the income tax.
t4) 1t imposes unwarranted burdens
upon the consumption of the commu.
nifty.
90 1t is calculated to throw business ,
INTO confusion by levying taxes on gross
receipts instead Of upon commodities.
90 1t fails to make proper use of
stamp taxes.
ca 1t follows an unscientific system
n its fat rate on imports
go 1t includes a multiplicity Of pet
y and unlucrative taxes, the vexatious- I
Tess of which is out Of all proportion to
he revenue they produce. I
The fundamental lines on which the
louise bill should be modified are sum.
ned up herewith: :
a. The amount of new taxation
hould be limited to $3.50, 0O0,O OO-or I
t the outset to S1,500,OOO,O0O. To do !
lore than this would be as unwise as 4
is unnecessary To do even this ]
Tould be to do more than has ever Z
cen done by any civilized Govern )
lent in time Of stress Il
(2) The excess-profits tax based upon !
sound system ought to yield about Z
!
(3) The income-tax schedule ought to 4
e revised with lowering OF the rates
! earned incomes below $4,000, and II
18th an analogous lowering OF the y
ties on the higher incomes, so as not Z,
exceed "a per cent. A careful cal. !,
llation shows that an income tax OF Z,
lis kind would yield some $4,000 !,
% additional. Z,
az The tax on whisky and tobacco 7,
lght to remain approximately as 1t is, q
18th yield Of about $3.50, 100000 "a
These three taxes. together with the 4
amp tax at even the low rate Of the ~
ouse bill, and with an improved au- 4
mobile tax, will yield over 1890 -
0,OO0, which Is the amount Of money 4
ought desirable. ~
The above program would be In har u
ony with an approved scientific sys- =
N. 1t will do away with almost all e
the complaints that are being urged y
ainst the present. II will refrain -
,m taxing the consumption OF the -
or ~
I win throw a far heavier burden ~
on the rich, but will not go to the IL
tremes OF conHscation. II will OBJ ~
tie interference with business and u
II keep unimpaired the social pro ~