Edgefield advertiser. [volume] (Edgefield, S.C.) 1836-current, 1922-01-18
from this source, is earnestly urged.

Income Tax.
I wish to elaborate somewhat on
the subject Of a tax on incomes. l
have found, somewhat to my surprise,
that there is probably more opposl-
ton to this particular tax than any
others recommended, The income tax
is not only satisfactory in yielding
revenue but it is collected directly
from the person whom it is intended
to tax. Its yield is certain and is based
upon tax paying ability. 1t must be
borne in mind that the objection to
the present property tax as being I'M
lust and oppressive can never apply
to a tax of incomes. A property tax
falls upon owners of tangible prop
erty and becomes a crushing burden
when paid by a farmer who has
placed his faith, his labor and money
in a crop which fails to yield a profit
or upon a merchant when he is un-
able to dispose of his merchandise at
a profit. 1t becomes %exorbitant when
it asks for payment upon property
which has been a loss. The property
tax asks a contribution of a mar who
has worked for a year and been
awarded with a defcit-debts instead
of profits.
On the other hand, the income tax
asks nothing of a man who has no
income; it exacts nothing of him with
a small income. 1t requires nothing
of anyone unless his or her net in
come above all legitimate expenses is
adequate to support the taxpayer In
ordinary comfort. There is no dupli-
cation of burden or injustice in such
a scheme. The income tax is levied
on ability to pay from profits and not
from principal, and it can not op-
press the taxpayer as he is now fire.
quently oppressed by the general
property tax. The administration OF
an income tax law should not be
more difficult in South Carolina than
it is in other states, where it has been
found practicable and satisfactory. l
am sure the federal government will
cooperate with the state in supplying
certain data which will remove many
of the administrative difficulties. l
trust and most earnestly urge that
YOU will enact at this session the in
come tax bill now on the house calen-
dar, or substitute for it a bill based
upon the federal law. 1t has been
co~nservatively estimated that a mod
crate tax on incomes will raise in this
state from 100000 to 100000
per annum.
Inheritance Tax.
A tax on gifts and inheritances
is an important part of any well con-
sidered tax system. It's yield and ad-
ministration has been so entirely sat
isfactory that every state in the un-
ion, with the exception of about four
or five, has adopted it as a source OF
state revenue. The validity of such
a tax is unquestioned. The wisdom
of it, it seems to me, does not admit
of argument. The ~advisability of a
tax on Inheritance is well expressed
in an opinion of H. f. Seager when
he says:
"The law properly protects the
owner of property in its full enjoy
ment during his lifetime. When ne
dies, however, the disposition of the
property which he preferred to re-
tain as his W to the very end, as
sumes large social significance. The
imposition of an inheritance ak is
simply the assertion by the state of
a right to share in property left at
death under the conditions set forth
in the tax law. If the share taken by
the state is moderate, there is every
reason to think that the heirs will
accept it as a matter of course and
think gratefully of the part that is
left to themselves rather than grudg-
ingly of the part which they do not
receive. There thus appears good
ground for the claim that moderate
inheritance taxes, increasing from 1
per cent on inheritances from a GER
tain amount left to direct heirs even
to as much as 20 per cent of very
big estates passing to collateral heirs
or strangers, do not impose a burden
that is consciously felt by anyone"
The Inheritance tax bill passed by
the house of representatives at its