The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1925-07-11
DIRECT TAXES
ARE B0U Nd
TO BE UNFAIR
Theory and Practice Found
10 he Two Mighty Diff
fcrcnt Things
~ CHARLES +. STEWART
NEA Service Writer

Washington, July ll.--TaxatIon
theory and taxation practice arc two
mighty different things.
The theory, AS pointed out in a
preceding article, is that take $
should be just sufficient to sup
port efficient but economical gov
crnment, and be divided up in pro
portion to peoples ability to pay.
In practice, efficiency and econ
omy are possible. but by no known
means can the burden be cquitably
distributed.
Most Of the state and lesser gov
crnments throughout this country dc
part, in practice. from the whole tax
alton theory. They cant distribute
the load fairly, practically without
exception they're wastcful and few
Of them are efficient.
From the standpoint Of economy
the federal government, under Pres
ident Coolidge, does pretty we'll.
BUDGET Director Lord plans to
hold the coming fiscal years cXpcn
ditures down to three billions. The
last pre-war year figure was Il bill
non anu nearly 10 IiiltolS.
Considering that dollar is worth
only three fifths what it was worth
then and that interests being paid
on more than twenty billions and
n half of war debts. this isn't bad,
let taxpayers kick as they may.
Whether the federal government :
efficient or not is a matter of opin-
ion. My own is. as stated in the .'rst
article Of this taxation series, that
is better than the electorate has any
right to expect, from the way it votes
and doesn't vote.
But the most conspicuous way n
which taxation theory and practice
fail to jibc is in the matter Of dis
tribution Of the burden in proportion
to the taxpayers means.
In the very nature of things the
relatively poor man is soaked with
practically the whole load. while the
rich one carries hardly any.
Why? Because the former controls
the sources Of supply of all the nee
cssarics. comforts and Injuries of
life, and before he hands them over
TO the ultimate consumer includes
his taxes in the prices he charges
for his stuff-So that the relatively
poor, as an overwhelming ma jority
of ultimate consumers foot the bill
To be sure. the rich man is an
ultimate consumer" himself, but he S
only one individual. at that. Three
meals a day, one smoke at time. a
single suit of clothes at once are
about his limit, just as they're the
limit of anybody else.
He may eat little better food
smoke Havanas instead of a pipe and
have some extra raiment in tho
closet at home, but nothing like
enough to offset the advantage in
herent in his ability to pass his taxes
along to someone further down tn,
line.
The government, as we'll as tn,
people, dislikes an income tax. be
cause it's recognized rs tax Thos,
who pay it want to know what's be
ing done with the money they dis
tinctly recall having dug up.
1t makes 'cm critical. In that lic
its one merit.
It's only theoretically fair. 70
it's passed on down from above, Xix,
sharper public scrutiny of porl
barrclism than an indirect tax.
The tariff, in addition to its "pro
tective" feature, is a nice tax. from
the governments standpoint, becaus'
it works subtly. It doesn't figure a
tax.
One reason why President Coolidg
turned down the Tariff Commits
sion's recommendation for reduced
sugar impost was that it would cos
the government forty millions. whic1
would have to be replaced by "som
kind of tax"
AS if the increased sugar price
the public antes up. because of tn
duty. weren't tax!
The treachery in the tariff is tina
its; amount can't be estimated, as
tax.
The government gets from il abou
a half billion a year. But in in
creased cost of living, it represents
God knows how much more. It.
supposed to filter back into the gov
ernment's hands, in devious WAYS.