New Mexico state record. (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1914-19??, 1917-07-06
ECONOMY EXPERT FISHER
GIVES LIQUOR TAX FACTS

GIVES LIQUOR TAX FACTS.
In 1916 the Federal Government
received revenue from revenue taxes
on alcoholic beverages of $l59!0OOOC
. from distilled spirits and $50 100000
from fermented liquors, making less
than one-quarter of a billion alto
gethcr. This is less than 10 per cent
of the subscriptions to the liberty
: loan, and less than S per cent OF
the per annum wartime Federal ex-
penditurc-rossibly less than 2 per
cent; while the part derived from
fermented liquors is less than 2 per
cent of the annual cost of the Fed
eral Government and perhaps less
than ! per cent. These taxes are
of course paid not by the industry
but by the consumer as part of
the two and one-quarter billions
$2225 100000, he pays in the retail
price of liquors leaving two billion
$4,000 0000OO) additional cost which
the Government does not get and
which is worse than wasted, for the
nation. It is what we pay to liquor
dealers and producers for narcoti-
zing US. Now that psychologists,
and also the American Medical Asso.
citation (on June nth inst.) condemn
alcoholic beverages we are ratified
in jsaying that the nation loses two
billion worth of energy in their pro-
duction. Under prohibition the same
two and one quarter billions would
be spent on non-alcoho'ic drinks and
other things. That is the nations
labor and capital now so wasted
would be transferred into channels
truly productive. The Government
could then get the same quarter Of
a billion from the same people and
still leave as it were two billions in
their pockets. There would be that
value produced in additional food.
munitions, clothing, etc. Besides
there would also be an increase of
productive energy. Experiments
show that two TO four glasses of
beer a dav will impair the work done
in tvpcScttinr by 3 per cent. increase
the time required for heavy noun
tain marches % per cent. and ac-
curacy in shooting under severe
army tests 30 per cent.
Assuming the total alcohol used in
the United States to be consumed
uniformly among its families and as
suming that each daily glass of beer
reduces productivity 2 per cent to
4 per cent it follows that the pro-
ductivity Of labor in the United
States would be increased from 10
per cent to 20 per cent by prohibi.
ton But if as is the fact the con-
sumption is uncqually distributed
the impairment viii Of course be
greater. that is ten glasses of beer
will produce more than twice the
impairment of five glasses. There
fore 10 per cent increase is safe
minimum. More direct evidence is
available. In Russia textile mills
have increased productivity per cent
since vodka prohibition and in textile
mills the pace is almost riCidly fix
ed bv machinery. The Russian min
ister Of Finance reports that in min
ing districts the increased prodnc-
tivitv has been 30 per cent, OBJ
servers in Finland find in mining dis
trcts an Increase of 50 per cent. A
Connecticut manufacturer who made
careful reckoning as to what
drunkenness among his EMPLOYEES
cost him found that its elimination
alone without eliminating moderate
drinking. would increase his factory
output over 20 per cent. Conse-
orently in view Of all these and other
facts we are safe in concluding that
labor productivity would be increa
sed at least 10 per cent through pro-
hbition so that the wages and pro-
fits in territory now wet would ex-
pand over 10 per cent. Basinp esti-
mates for 1917 on figures of Profess
sor King of Wisconsin for 1909 and
1910 the present total ;ncome of the
people of the United States repre-
senting the entire national produc-
tive energy is abou. forty-five bill
lion dollars $45000.Vn000) of which
three-fourths consists of wages and
profits Assume that the remainder
consisting of interests, rents. etc,
is not increased through prohibition
and count only the thirty-three bill
lion (S33.O0O, ,0O000O) of wages and
lprofis. Most of this is produced in
the wet territory where our large
cities and industries are. A rough
study shows that two-thirds of our
national wealth is in the wet area,
also three-fourths of our corporate
incomes and four-fifths of our per-
sonal incomes subject to income
tax, therefore, at least two-thirds of
he nations wages and profits are
produced in wet area or over twen-
ty-two billions. Applying the esti-
mated possible increase of 10 per
cent we discover that we would at
least gain in added production
through the release of human energy
two and two-tenths fS' 200000,o00(
billions. This is in addition to the
two billions saved merely by trans
ferring our energies from alcohol
production to something possessing
true value. The gain through the
transfer of energy and the gain
through the increase of energy are
together therefore over four billions.
without counting the indirect saving
with the moral side by saving the
cost of iails. almhouses. asylums. etc,
nor counting the economic saving
4 from reducing the death rate. It is
therefore pennywise and pound
foolish to argue that prohibition des-
troys revenue-it simply requires a
transfer of taxes from alcoholic
beverages to non-alcoholic beverages
and the other productions to which