The Seattle star. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1899-1947, 1918-12-03
"Old Man Figgers" Would Cut Out
All Taxes Save Those on Incomes

all tho work
It's a scream 10 hear old Man Fig
gers talk II he wasn't rich. you
would expect H. hut. directly and IN
directly. he paid several hundred
thousand dollars last year as his
share OF tho income tax. and yet he
yelps TO be- taxed more.
us rich people have come out OF
the war richer than We went into ~
Why don't YOU soak u.s. That's the
way the old man talks.
The country the United States
has come out Of the war richer than
when ~ went In. so has Great Brit
ain. Her exports have actually In
creased Her powers Of production
have increased. just as ours have,
hut that's another story We are
talking about TAXATION. We have
started right on this taxation buhi'
ness. and We ought 10 keep IL up
Old Man Figgers' plan II certainly
simple.
Tax the people who can best AT
ford TO pay. Make II heavy on the
rich man and light on the poor man.
Have publicity for tar returns. Tax
alton ~ public business. There
should be no secrecy about H. My
neighbor has n right 90 know what
pay. and have IA right TO know what
he pays. If the returns were made
public. there would be mighty little
tax lodging"
DO you think there is much dodE-
ing now7" l asked
THE government Isn't getting
half" he snapped. Take the total
wealth produced every year BY the
United States. The census puts IL
at 80 billions IL is nearer 60 bill
Ions. Figure the percentage Of this
that comes into the hands OF the ?
per cent who own so per cent Of
Tire country's wealth. Does II look
as II they were paying their share
Of income taxcs7"
Would you let the poor person
so untaxed7"
Just Like Questionnaire
Not at all. would have every
person in the United Statea make
return. IL would be a perfectly
simple matter. Like the military
QUESTIONABLE. only handled by an
organization like tho census office.
with everybody on the books or on
the card indcx-beclusr that IN bow
u would be handled-lt could be
checked up. There would be
nominal tar. on the little incose
The poor person would pay some.
thing like postage stamp. II
might be cents or cents or a
dollar or five dollars a year. an the
amount incrcased. Then. an 1t
came UP 10 US big fellows. the rate
would increase until a man with a
million "a year would be practically
working for the government"
Wouldn't that make terribly
big income for the federal govern.
mcutT''
OF course. But what Of that7
We have war debt 20 pay. Then.
u IL begins 10 bulge In our pockets.
We can rpand IL on things the
country ne~ds--new railroads. new
automobile truck roads. new canals
and internal waterways. better
housing. better sanitation. a better
country. This country il In danger
OF getting too rich and having too
many rich men like me. Bleed w.
This In the time and the way To
do it."
Count Land as Income
This sounded good 20 me. but I
wondered what our single tar
friends would say. SO put an.
other question.
What II you rich men pu, all
your surplus money into iands--un.
used ianda-and kept only enough
Of your capital productive TO buy
living and luxuriesY~
II wouldn't let land escape. That
Is easy enough to manage. 1 would
count lasnd as income. II a man
owned his home. IL would stand for
aH much Income as he would pay for
rent II he did not own IL. II he
owned unproductive acres. would
charge as income reasonable per.
ceniage on their Assessed value.
That would discourage the holding
OF L,nd out OF use.
but how about state. city and
county and township taxes? Would
you do away with those7"
why not7 There would be
money enough TO cover all those
purposes. and Il would be easy TO
apportion the amounts according to
local wealth and population. Why
should taxes be farrncd out 20 all
these subordinate officials? And
why should the machinery and OK.
pcnse of collection be duplicated and
Implicated and complicated until
there In every invitation To graft. In.
efficiency and Extravaganza
Wipe Out Frontiers.
simplify H. That's what my plan
would do. II would save money at
a thousand points and produce rev.
enue undrcamed Of"
/ had "A final question:
How about the tariff Arc We
to so To free trade
My answer to that is: BE honest
about the tariff. II we want tariff
for protection I'm not sure we
may not--let's have II protective not
"A protective tariff for revenue.
Cut out the tariff for revenue. Let's
get the revenue elsewhere"
After a pause. the Old Man added
significantly:
And has IL ever occurred to you
that perhaps flying machines and
submarines will wipe out national
frontiers-make custom houses and