The Brinkley argus., 1917-06-15
that the subject matter
 b'' s0tter s,tt understood, the ?
 x ps+i a,ticle is published tho
 'prrfored. rf Ed ] N SHALL WE THE WAR? EtIuGtIVe Criticism on the House Revenue B|h' ], BETTER THAN TAXES
m Q A. sELiGMAN,

.ow,N R. A. sELIeMAN,
 tu" .,sssor of Political Econ
 par rrrolumbia University.
 snS a 1917, the House of Rep
 ny -0' 70 seed an act ito provide
 pa,s' .s defray war expenses and
 " v.urnoses." In the original
 2 :,is1ted s5 lI-it by the Committee Q of
 lss pssstsl Means, the additional reve-
 ,s n derived was estimated at sl,-
 |ss' 1' The amendment R to the R-
 z, '" which va was tackled on to the
 ..e % tbe discussion in the House
 |,sssted +ss to yield another S4o'o 'ooo'-
 NSS,6oo. -. @
 N,eusslng the Hodse bill' two
 {; iFlss; ,,oa nv
 - mucb should be raised py | < what manner should this sum
 edl s~
 Much Should Be Raised oy 4 Taxation?
 r,s the figure of $1,s00,ooo,0 1000
 ,,s The answer is simple. When
 s,stary of the Treasury came to
 ,s tbe additional war expenses
 year 1917-1S, he calculated that |rsud amount to some $6,Coo,-
 \ of which s3,Ooo,ooo,ooo was to rrtpd to the allies, and S3,6OO,-
 WAS to be utilized for the do 1 nurposes. Thinking that 1t { be q fair proposition to divide |aner sum between loans and bp concluded that the amount Enised by taxes was $1,SOO,OOo,- Lr are two extreme theories, each bbh may be dismissed with scant Lc, The one Is that all war ex- knres should be defrayed by loans, |He other is that all war expend1- should be defrayed by taxes, theory is untenable.
 |b indeed true that the burdens of hsr should be borne by the pres uther than the future generation; Ihs does not mean that they should Irne by this years taxation. Iung all war expenses by taxation a the taxpayers in one or two ! bear the burden of benefits that kto be distributed at least over a A within the same generation. |the second place, when expendi- approach the gigantic sums of midday warfare, the tax-only pol sould require more than the total ig of social income. Were this ktey necessary, the ensuing hav- Ith economic life of the cOmmuni- puld have to be endured. But the disasters are so great and E same time so unnecessary, the aE policy may be declared i'm iHble
 ustary McAdoo had the right tn- and highly commendable cour- D deciding that q substantial DOT a least, of the revenues should ElVed from taxation. But when fupon the plan of 50-50 per cent, < of raising one-Ealf of all do- k war expenditures by taxes, the uOn arises whether he did not go l.
 relative proportion of loans to after all 6 purely business nton. Not to rely to a large ex- n loans at the outset of a war is Iake.
 'Nantaoss of Exesssivs Tassos. 'u3o7antaSes Of excessive taxes Ntset of the war are as follows |: AesSs've taxes on consumption .se popular resentment.
 a1ssve taxes oo industry WI Aase sassness- damp enthusiasm
 act the spirit of enterprise sa " une when the opposite is 's've taxes on incoQes VII dc ~ @fsass available for invest, ''aa Ate5e~e with the placing of
 aess loans which VIM be necss- any e~s.t.
 w taxes On wealth VIII .eAsos dixinuttoa >f the iu- sueA ere at pgessat lsassay ~oa iof the support q sduca- |. - pdiaathropic enterprises. .nese sources of support \. \ 0Hed up precisely at the ume
 nesd would be greatest. .''ssiss taxation at the e,.t,et .f !. .'' M reduce the sIastieity avalI- !, "s Increasing demands that s''at sritain's Policy. : S'sat Britain as an example. :. ,ue urst year of the war she M ' .s1es only slightly, in order /. luusuies going at top notch. V, 1e second year she raised by H.' 'ass only 9 per cent. of her war r,.. ..,es' During the third year ha @ oy additional taxes lover tue pre-war leveD only mOre than 1T per cent. of her s uould attempt to do as much a,s @ year of the war as Great to a'u VI m the third year it would i Y ,r ialse by taxation $1, ,25O, ,0OO,- 's ,a na order to be absolutely on i. :. que It seemed advisable to ,a ,ue sum to $500, 900, ,ooo, this
 0ur opinion, be the maxi.