Webster City freeman. [volume] (Webster City, Hamilton County, Iowa) 1884-1946, 1921-04-04

ments. The bill exempts all holdings up
TO $4,000 in value by one owner, also
excludes improvements. Well, suppose
we take $4,000 from the average Iowa
farm. That would leave $4,000. Then
suppose we estimate the improvements
al $4,000, which is high, that would
leave $4,000 as the taxable value under
the Ralston-Nolan bill. 1t is proposed
to tax the land one per cent, hence
it will be plain to everybody that the
average tax paid under this bill, if it
became law, would be 5000 per Iowa
farm.
The sponsors of the bill also compare
the federal taxes paid by farmers with
the federal taxes paid by the manufac-
turers, which is very unfair com,
EGrison.
According to the census bureau there
we're Gill 1854 farmers in the United
States in 1914 and the value of their
products, live stock and all, was $685.
OG1, OG0. Thus the average farmer in
1914 produced stock and produce to the
value of $1.G19, and of course he would
not pay a federal income tax except in
exceptional instances. A few who pro-
duced far above the average would
have to pay. Possibly the production
per farm in 1919 was worth twice as
much as in 1914, but we have not the
figures. However, if each farmer did
produce twice as much in value, equal
to S3,23S, very few Of them would have
profit in excess of $1,000, hence few
of them would pay federal tax, and
they should not pay.
In 1914 there were only 275,701
manufacturing Institutions in the Unit
ed States and they produced goods and
wares of the value of $24 ,246, 53S3, 600,
or approximately $4,000 each. Posi-
bly, the value of the manufacturers
produced in 1910 was twice as much as
in 1914. as they increased just as the
value of farm products did. Hence
VIC have each manufacturer in the
United States producing on the aver
age in 1910 goods and wares to the
value of $4,000. Just how much of
that is profit the Freeman-JOurnal
doesn't know. But after the usual ex-
emption of $1,000 given corporations
and individuals and allowing expenses,
the institution that takes in on the
average $4,000 per year would Of
course pay much larger tax than the
one that took in only $3,25s. Among
the former class it would be the eXcep-
ton that didn't pay, while among the
latter it would he the exception that
did pay.
The unprejudiced mind will see from
these figures and deductions that the
comparisons made by the sponsors of
the Ralston- Nolan bill of the income
tax paid by the farmer and by the
manufacturer is unfair and misleading.
These incomes of 1919 of course are
only estimates based upon the income
according to the census bureau for 1914,
but they cannot be far wrong. The
exact figures would not alter the rela-
tive positions Of the two classes.
Moreover. the farmer sells upon a
market where the price is fixed for
Linn and he cannot add the taxes he
pays to the goods he sells. In this
particular he is in different position
than the average manufactures is who
adds taxes to the general expense and
then fixes the selling prices Of his
products according to such costs. let
ting the consumer pay it.
The farmer is running comparative
Is small manufacturing plant compared
to manufacturing plants generally, and
based upon the actual value Of his
plant compared to the others he pays
more taxes for local and state pur-
poses than other manufacturing indus
tries do. This is not true when COM
pared with the business man and home
owner, but assessors and boards OF
equalization have always favored
manufacturing plants. as an examina-
ton of the records will prove right here
i'll Webster City as we'll as elsewhere.
There is no complaint Of this prac-
ttce, but there Is complaint when manu-
faeturers get together, as they have
back of the Ralston- Nolan bill. and try
to fasten a property tax for federal
purposes upon farmers which the manu-
facturers themselves do not pay.
1t is one of the most outrageous
bills ever introduced in congress and
the farmers of the nation ought to rise
in their wrath and denOunce it in
language and tone that cannot he mis-
understood in congress.