The Brunswick news. [volume] (Brunswick, Ga.) 1906-2016, 1917-02-08
NOT ExEmPTINe THE POOR MAN.

s-~t4OAa4 uOuSS VI Representatives las
week passed the revenue bill. The
most drastic feature OF that bill is the
provision for a tax OF per cent OF
all profits above per cent plus a mel
profit Of 5000 a year.
This is to apply to partnerships
corporations, insurance companies ano
joint stock companies, and not 10 in
dividuals For instance, Barney Ba
ruch. the man who made S476,O0O be
cause of the leak about the presidents
note, viii not be taxed a dollar under
this provision. He gets by because
| he is an Individual; yet ii he ana an
other had been doing business toge-
ther as partners. the partnership
would have been taxed. John Wana-
maker. who owns one Of the greatest
mercantile enterprises In America.
does not have to pay a cent of this
tax. because he is Ia business as an
individual. The small corporation
with petty profits must bear burden
which the big individual business man
escapes. The man with millions in.
vested in an individual enterprise
goes scot free.
This special tax was designed to
fail ON Big Business and IL WILL in
large measure, with results that can.
not be foretold The northern states
will yield the larger part Of the tax.
fact that will BIO stressed IN the sec
tionaligm speeches that will be made
in the next congressional and presI-
Dental campaigns.
The poor man, as well as the rich.
however, Is TO bear the burden. The
savings OF thousands of workingmen
are invested in corporations that, nav
ing to pay this tax, will naturally and
righttully make these poor depositors
and investors bear their proportion
ate share Of the tax The tax will be
generally found to DO levy on thrift.
One savings institution in this coun.
try has sl5O.0O0,0 900 in deposits invest.
cd in railroad enterprises and in
stocks OF corporations which will have
TO pay this tax. The per cent tax
will not be levied on these railroads,
corporations and partnerships SO much
as upon the savings invested In them.
The poor as we'll as the rich will have
TO pay in order to meet the deficiency
to be supplied by this new federal
lax.
The administration OF the new tax
is going to be confronted with much
difficulty in enforcement II is going
TO be next to impossible 10 prevent
wholesale evasion. The law is not
clear as to the proper computation OF
the taxable proiits--over this there
Will be constant dispute
The tax is also discriminatory 1t
applies only to aggregations with a
net income OF $1,000 or more. it OK
empts incomes from partnerships de-
rived from agriculture. or solely from
personal services. Why we're these
Determinations made? Why didn't
congress $50 the whole hog or none?"
If a farmer has an income of $4,000
a year, If lawyer or doctor has an
income of that amount. what possible
justification can there be for not tax.
ing him at the Same rate the aggrega-
ton OF less wealthy individuals com
posing partnerships and corporations
are taxed? Is not the answer that
the political principal of the greatest
number OF dueats for the least loss
in votesg E"
The corporation is the creature of
the state and not of the federal gov
eminent The state should have re-
cei,ed this tax, if II WAS necessary to
levy it. but the nation has again in
vaded the domain OF state sovereignty
and usurped another field of state tax.
alton.
This novel and drastic tax will cor.
tainly not encourage collective enter
prise. and is calculated to deter the
formation OF corporations and partner
ships. The scientific basis OF all tax
ation is ability to bear the burden.