New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1917-07-15


ton. and. third, that he fails square
ly to meet my arguments.
Regards Problem
An Economic One
At both the beginning and the end
of his paper Professor Carver as
sumes that the problem is primarily
an ethical one, whereas | regard 1t
as a plain economic problem. Even
in so far, however, as Professor
Carver envisages it as an economic
problem he misstates it, According
to him, it is a question as between
those who fight and those who stay
at home. Why, asks he, should not
those who stay at home do their
share by paying the taxes? Let the
man at the front fight; let the man
at home pay the taxes.
This, in my opinion, is an essen
tally erroneous way Of posting the
question. In the first place, those
who do the fighting at the front are
rot the only ones who are serving
the country. In the case of volun-
tarv enlistment. the number of those
al home who have volunteered for
unpaid service in connection with
the government already compares
favorably with the number Of those
who have volunteered for paid mill
tary service. And if it IS a question
of CONSUMPTION, we shall probably
SOON come to methods of industrial
CONSUMPTION which several OF the
European belligerents have adopted
side by side with military conscrip-
ton. In the second place, those at
the front, like the stay-at-homes, are
drawn from every walk Of life. Con-
scription knows neither wealth nor
any other form Of privilege. At the
front we find the poor and the
wealthy. The poor man offers his
life; he can do no more. The rich
man offers his life, but he also pays
his taxes at home. And the same
thing is true Of those who do not go
to the front. All Of those who are
left behind indeed pay indirect
taxes. if there are any, in proportion
to their consumption. But the poor
man pays no direct tax on wealth,
because he does not possess wealth
while the rich man does pay the d.
rect tax, as he ought to do.
1t is plain, therefore, that the
problem is not as between the man al
the front and the stay-at-home. The
attempt to put the situation in this
way presents an entirely false issue
Wealth Should Provide
Bulk Of Revenue
Nor, again, is it really problem
as between rich and poor. The prob
lem as between rich and poor is one
Of taxation-that is, it is a problem
of how the system of taxation should
be arranged so as TO fall with rela-
tive equality upon the citizens in
proportion 10 their ability 10 pay
The problem that we are consider
ing, however, is that of loans rerSU'
taxes-that is. the problem Of what
proportion Of war expenses ought &c
be raised by loans and what proper
ton by taxes. In a democracy the
system of taxation ought to be sc
arranged that the bulk Of public
revenue comes from wealth. Under
any form Of government, moreover
the loans granted to the government
must necessarily come in greater
part from wealth. II is wealth, there
fore, which in any event must be the
chief source Of both loans and taxes
The problem Of loans rsrsus taxes i;
thus primarily one Of their relative
effects upon the wealth Of the com
munity as a whole. These effect
may, indeed, be Of varying charac
ter on the different classes Of the
community. But it is not primarily
a question of rich versns poor, and II
Is most certainly not question az
between the fighters and the stay-at
homes.
Wherein Theories
On Taxation Differ
In the second place, Professor
Carver misreprescnts my position
although in practice there is prob
ably little difference between US