The Knoxville independent. [volume] (Knoxville, Tenn.) 1894-current, 1917-06-23
BY EDWIN r. A. sELIGMAN,

BY EDWIN r. A. SEllGMAN,
McVickar Professor of Political Econ
omy, Columbia University.
On May %, 1917, the House of Rep.
resentativeS passed an act ito provide
revenue to defray war expenses and
for other purposes" In the original
bill as presented by the Committee of
Ways and Means, the additional reve.
nue. to be derived was estimated at ST..
810,420,000. The amendment to the In.
come tax, which was tackled on to the
bill during the discussion in the House,
was expected to yield another $4,000
600 or $50,OOO,0OO.
In discussing the House bill, two
problems arise:
|. How much should be raised by
taxation?
IL. In what manner should this sum
be raised?
l. How Much Should Be Raised by
| Taxation?
How was the figure Of $1,SO0,O00,000
! arrived at? The answer is simple When
the Secretary Of the Treasury came to
estimate the additional war expenses
for the year 1917-1S, he calculated that
they would amount to some $GG00,-
100000 of which $3,000,000000 was to
be allotted to the allies, and $780,.
100000 was to be utilized for the do
nestle purposes. Thinking that it
would be fair proposition to divide
this latter sum between loans and
taxes, he concluded that the amount
to be raised by taxes was $1,S00000,-
900.
There are two extreme theories, each
Of which may be dismissed with scant
courtesy. The one is that all war ex-
penditures should be betrayed by loans,
and the other is that all war expendi-
lures should be betrayed by taxes.
Each theory is untenabe,
1t is indeed true that the burdens of
the war should be borne by the pres
ent rather than the future generation;
but this does not mean that they should
/, be borne by this years taxation.
Meeting all war expenses by taxation
17maKes the taxpayers in one or two
years bear the burden Of benefits that
ought to be distributed at least over a
decade within the same generation.
In the second place, when expendi-
lures approach the gigantic sums Of
present-day warfare, the tax-only pol
icy would require more than the total
surplus of social income. Were this
absolutely necessary, the ensuing hav-
oc in the economic life of the communi-
| ty would have to be endured. But
where the disasters are so great and
tax only policy may be declared i'm
practicable.
Secretary McAdoo had the right in
stinct and highly commendable cour-
age in deciding that a substantial por-
ton, at least, of the revenues should
be derived from taxation. But when
he hit upon the plan of $3.50 per cent.
that is, of raising one-half of all do
nestle war expenditures by taxes, the
question arises whether he did not &C
too far
The relative proportion of loans t.
taxes is after all a purely business
proposition. Not to rely to large ex.
tent on loans at the outset of war is
mistake.
Disadvantages of Excessive Taxes.
The disadvantages of excessive taxes
at the outset Of the war are as follows
l. Excessive taxes on consumption
will cause popular resentment.
2. Excessive taxes on industry will
disarrange business, damp enthusiasm
and restrict the spirit of enterprise at
the very time when the opposite is
needed.
B. Excessive taxes on incomes will de.
plete the surplus available for invest.
ments and interfere with the placing of
the enormous loans which will be neces-
sary in any event.
4. Excessive taxes Oh wealth will
cause Il serious diminution Of the in.
comes which are at present largely
drawn upon for the support of educa
tional and philanthropic enterprises
Moreover, these sources of support
would be dried up precisely at the time
when the need would be greatest.
s. Excessive taxation at the outset of
the war will reduce the elasticity avail
able for the Increasing demands that
are soon to come.
Grsat Britain's Policy.
Take Great Britain as an example
During the first year Of the war she
increased taxes only slightly, in order
to keep industries going at top notch.
During the second year she raised by
new taxes only per cent. of her war
expenditures During the third year
she levied by additional taxes lover
and above the pre-war leveD only
slightly more than II per cent. of her
war expenses.
If we should attempt to do as much
In the first year of the war as Great
Britain did in the third year it would
sufBSe to raise by taxation $1,250.000,-
900. IF. in order to be absolutely on
the safe side, it seemed advisable to
increase the sum to $1,500,000,000, this
should. I'm our opinion, be the maxi
mum.
A s<A l@R4