The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1930-04-22
EXCISE CONTOUR
W0ULDBEP RORATED
TO WHEAT GROWERS
Proposal Is to Impose 81 per
Barrel on That Consumed
at Home, Refund Export
CREATES NO NEW OFFICES
Author and 1ackers Claim It
Would Not Interfere With
Existing Marketing
CREATES NO NEW OFFICES

Existing Marketing
A farm relief plan which It's pro-
jectors hold superior to the plans on
which the McNary-Haugen bill was
based and also to the export deben-
ture proposal Of the present tariff
bill now in conference has been put
forth by the Farmer and Farm.
Stock and Home, issue of April 10.
end will be seriously proposed in con-
gress for enactment into law.
The plan is to impose a 81 excise
tax on every barrel of flour milled in
the United States. the resulting fund
to prorated back to the wheat grow
crS on a basis of bushels grown by
each. The tax on exported flour
would be refunded to the mills.
The plan was proposed through the
column conducted BY Harry N. Owen.
former editor and publisher of the
journal and son Of the original editor
and publisher, Sidney M. Owen, in
his time Farmer Alliance candidate
for governor Of Minnesota. The jour-
lal Endorses It In an editorial.
Nature Of Plan
According to the statement of Mr..
Owen as to the nature Of the plan.
1T originated with w. B. Grobe, Min
neapolis. In brief, 1t contemplated
levytng an excise tax of 81 a barrel on
all flour milled in the United States.
This would furnish q fund that would
be prorated back on every bushel of
wheat sold. The miller would add the
81 to the price of his flour. the job
Der would sell his flour to the retailer
on the basis Of what he had paid for
il plus his profit. the retailer would
SO the same. thing #. or when the
flour Is exported. the exporter having
had the 81 tax passed IN to him when
he bought the flour for export would
submit his export manifest to the
United States treasury and get the g
a barrel back" The article contin-
ucs:
Every country elevator has at this
time an individual record for every
farmer who has sold it wheat. At
the close Of the crop year, the eleva-
tors would submit lists Of customers
and the amount Of wheat each one
has sold during the year. The county
treasurer would tabulate the number
Of bushels and forward to the state
treasurer. who in turn would tabulate
the county reports and send the result
to the United States treasury depart
nlent. With modern methods of ma
chine bookkeeping. the number of
bushels sold by farmers could be
quickly determined.
Let us say that there have been
100000 COO barrels Of flour made. At
81 a barrel this would place in the
hands Of the treasury department
$500. 000. 200. Now assume that 30
100000 barrels have been exported on
which 81 each had been refunded, so
We subtract 500, 000, 900 from our
$500, 000. 900. which leaves S240,0 900 900
to be distributed to the farmers who
sold the wheat. Assuming the crop
will be $50. 900 bushels this year,
we would then have 80 cents a bushel
to give the sellers Of this wheat.
What Farmer Might Get
well, you may say: The tariff is
= cents q bushel. but we only get 80.
Not so good The reply to that is:
That Is your fault. II sometimes
o00.O00,0 900 bushels are grown and our
flour consumption is only 120, 0O0, 900
barrels. you would only get 20.6 cents
= bushel. The only way you can get
the full - cents Is by having q crop
lower than our domestic needs. The
further you get away from that, the
less money comes your way.
This plan wipes out the objection
Of dumping with its attendant inter-
national ill-will and possible compli-
cations. There Is no interference
With either the milling Or grain trade.
There Is no incentive to increase
acreage or uncertainty as to the ben
efits reaching the wheat grower. both
of which were serious objections to
the debenture. Neither does it, like
that plan, reduce the government
revenue from the duties.
Purchasing Power 4 Virtue
know the charge will be made
that we r taxing the bread of the
people. In view Of the fact that their
clothing. sugar, much Of their build
ing material, In fact. practically every
manufactured article they buy Is
taxed by the tariff. has been for more
than q hundred years, not only with
out protest but with enthusiastic &C.
ceptance. it Aeer1S to me this argu-
ment Is out Of order.
IAN increase Of $2lO, 900, 900 In the
purchasing power Of the wheat grow.
q, over what he Will get without this
plan, will more than offset the slight
increase In the bread price to the
consumer through more employment
at hetter wages"
The editorial adds to this statement
the following:
"In the case Of the export deben.
ture plan, there was always . ques-
ton 6 to whether the grower would
eventually get the benefit Of this tax.
These two objections seem to have
been overcome In the plan proposed
~ Nj. orobe.
I'm his proposal Mr.. 0robe frankly
aSks the American consumer Of flour
q pay TO the farmer the full benefit
O. the tariff on wheat through IN
exclse tax Of. - pr barrel on flour
enpGssned In the domestic market.
I'M 11Ouf that Is expogtod ooos not
~ this tar and hDnce would not
cause rerrisals ~ foreign countr1es.
IL y proposed 70 use the existing state
MISREPRESENTATION machinery 70 re-
MT ~ henolltn q this tar back 70
~. nroda1cAg, which would mean very
~ q adnxtptstfatton. such 8
>Dl0n, II addition e ~ other posaihle
Ff