Northern Wisconsin advertiser. [volume] (Wabeno, Wis.) 1898-1925, 1921-10-28
COMP ROM|SE BILL
PASSED BY sENAT
Body Votes for so Per Cent
Maximum Surtax.
PRoGREssIvEs WIN, 81 TO 10
New Measure, if Made Law, Would
Be Effective on Incomes Obtained
During the Calendar Year
of 1922.
PR0GRESSIvES WIN, 81 TO 10

WdSHllSlOu, Oct. Z4.-AlltI REJECT
ing proposals to retain the present 60
per cent maximum surtaX and to re-
duce the maximum to 80 per cent, the
senate approved a maximum of so per
cent, provided under the compromise
reached between Republican groups.
The new surtaX maximum, if made
law, would be effective on incomes
obtained during the calendar year of
1922, taxes on which would be pay
able in 1922.
There were three roll calls on the
question of surtax rates. The so per
cent maximum was approved by a
vote of "a to 13.
That vote carried with it the entire
schedule of surtax rates as framed by
the group Of progressive Republican
senator's led by Senators Mccormick
of Illinois, Lenroot of Wisconsin and
Capper of Kansas.
Decreases Are Provided.
Decreases in surtax rates are pro-
vided all along the line The lowest
rate is / per cent of the amount by
which the net income exceeds $4,000
and does not exceed $4,000. Under
the present law, the 1 per cent rate
applies on incomes between $4,000 and
$4,000 The 80 per cent rate applies
on the portion of income above $780,
900.
The Democrats joined with Repub-
leans in voting for the 80 per cent
maximum.
The 13 Republicans who voted
against the so per cent maximum were
Senator Calder of New York, Dilling-
ham of Vermont, Edge and Freling-
huysen of New Jersey, Hale and Fer
Maid of Maine, Moses and Keyes of
New Hampshire, Mclean Of Connect
cut, Smoot of Utah, Spencer of Mis-
souri,, Harold of Oklahoma and Cam
erOn of Arizona.
The first proposal voted on was an
amendment by Senator Hitchcock of
Nebraska, Democrat, for acceptance
of the reduced surtax rates on in
comes of less than 100000, but the
retention of present rates on incomes
in excess of 100000, these rates rang
ing up to 65 per cent on the amount
in excess of $1,O00,000.
Hitchcock Amendment Fails.
The Hitchcock amendment was re-
jected by a vote of % to 43. 1t failed
to receive the support of all the
Democrats. Those who voted for it
included five Republicans, Senators
Borah of Idaho, johnson Of California,
Kenyon of Iowa, LaFollette of Wis
consin and Norbeck of South Dakota.
After the Hitchcock amendment was
rejected. Senator Calder of New York
offered an amendment for acceptance
of the reduced surtax rates as pro-
posed in the 80 per cent compromise
schedule up to the rate of 80 per
cent on incomes above $6S,000 The
Calder amendment eliminated all the
higher surtax rates above 80 per cent.
This amendment was beaten by a
vote of 10 to 81.
All of the 10 senators voting in the
affirmative were Republicans.
Considers Normal Tax Rates.
After the question of surtax rates
was disposed of, the senate began con-
sideration of normal tax rates on in
dividual incomes. Senator Gerry,
Rhode Island, Democrat, spoke on his
amendment for reduction, a normal
tax of 2 per cent on amounts up to
$4,000, 4 per cent on the portion be-
tween $4,000 and $4,000, per cent
on the portion between $4,000 and
$4,000, and per cent on amounts
over $4,000.
This would be a substitute for the
present normal tax of per cent on
the portion of an income below $4,000,
and 8 per cent on that above $4,000,
which are not changed under the
pending bill. The amendment was un-
der consideration when adjournment
was taken. 1t was expected to meet
with defeat today.