The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1916-1920, 1919-04-09
The Comptroller's Objections to q
State Income Tax.

The able and alert Comptroller of
the Empire State went before the
Senate and Assembly Committees on
Taxation yesterday at Albany and
told them some highly interesting
things about the proposed individual
income tax law. Mr.. TRAVIS did this
partly by asking questions.
For example, he asked whether,
with Federal income tax ranging
from to 70 per cent. of income, an
additional income tax imposed by the
State Is a fair tax. The Comptroller
answered his own question by show
ing that individual incomes will con-
tribute to the Federal Treasury this
year on the 1918 tax about $500, OO0,-
600 from the State Of New York; and
next year, on the 1919 tax. approx
mately $425, 100000. Property in New
York. at the general State rate, pro-
duced in New York about $290.OOO,-
900. The imposition Of $50,OOO,0O0
of new taxation on the general prop
erty base would increase the prop
erty tax to S340, 100000. But II the
additional sac, O0O, 900 should be taken.
, as proposed, from incomes within the
State the burden on property would
remain at S29O,OOO,OO0. while the
share of income. Federal and State,
| would be increased to S475,000,Oo0.
Mr.. TRAVIS manifestly regards this rs
an inequltable and unscientlfic appor-
tionment of the tremendous burden.
Furthermore, the Comptroller
showed the committees another ele-
ment Of gross unfairness in the State
income tax. The proposed law makes
no exemption of income already paid
| or to be paid to the Federal collector.
The man with an income of 81 900, 900
! Is already taxed, for 1910, $663, 900
| thereon. His capacity to stand fur
| Their taxation Is not measured by ST.
600, 900, but by the 1887, 900 which
remains" the Comptroller points out.
In the same way the 100000 income
Is already taxed S31, 100 by the Fed
eral Government, and only $68,S10
remains to the possessor Of the in
come. The $4,000 income pays $500
to Washington and Is reduced to So
40; and so on. The bill, therefore,
not only would tax ability and faculty
to pay, but would provide for tax on
a tax, and by doubling the imposition
would take from the taxpayer what
he cannot justly be called upon to
pay to the State.
The other considerations suggested
by Comptroller TRAVIS in opposition
to the measure seem to us equally
sound. His examination OF the oner.
GUS and practically impossible provi-
sions regarding the Withholding of in
comes Of non-residents at the source
Is extremely searching. The bill re-
Quires every person who pays taxable
rent or interest or salary or compen-
sation of any nature, down to fee
to a doctor, or even to a tip to a
waiter or barber, to withhold 2 per
cent. thereon and report 1t to the Tax
Commission. Our State, he says, sis
so situated that nonresident capital
should be encouraged to invest in in
dustry, business and commerce within
the State-not discouraged. Project
a mental picture of the trouble, work
and annoyance that will be inflicted
upon those dealing with non-residents.
I can think of no more offensive pro-
vision nor one which presents such
positive administrative difficulties. y
And he continues as to the general
merits of the plan:
Let me leave with you the further
thought that an income tax once es-
tablished in this State will invite, II
not encourage, extravaganza and I'M
necessary expenditure OF public
funds. 1t will be so easy to obtain
additional moneys by simply increas-
ing the rate that temptations too
strong to resist will be presented.