The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1933-12-21
WHO PAYS THE PORK
PROCESSING TAX? -.

The processing tax on pork, which
is to repay the government for its
bounties to farmers who cut down on
their hog production, it now partially
in effect, although the amount of the
tax is to be raised until it amounts to
two cents a pound on live. hogs by
February 1. Some students of live
stock affairs are pointing out the fact
that since the tax first went into effect
the price of hogs in the Chicago
market has gone down just about the
amount of the tax. This is leading to
the question-who pays the process
ing tax?
1t was believed, and intended, by
those who favored the processing tax
plan of "helping the farmer" that the
tax would be paid by the consumers of
pork products, and it was estimated
that when the full tax came into effect
the price of choice bits of pork would
be raised in price all the way from
twenty to forty percent. But the fact
that the price of live hogs has de-
clined in about the amount of the pro-
cessing tax leads some opponents of
the live stock industry to believe that
perhaps, after all, the processing tax
may be paid by the farmer himself.
If this proves to be true it will only
mean that the government is putting
money in the right hand pants pocket
and that it is being gently removed
from the left hand pants pocket by
somebody else. Only time can tell
whether or not this suspicion is found
en- on fact. By the time February 1,
1884, rolls around and the full tax is
in effect we will probably know. Either
hogs will be selling at much lower
price on the live stock markets of the
country or. the consumer will be pay
ing much higher price for his pork.
1t is even barely possible that both
horns of the dilemma will develop.
For if the consumer angered by a sud-
den increase, goes on a strike against
pork, then the price of live hogs is
apt to go down whether the processing
tax is indirectly levied on the farmer
or not.
The Chicago Tribune recently
quoted the opinions of several live
stock men to the effect that the man
who sells live hogs is being made to
pay the cost Of the professors tax,
and citing the development of hog
prices as a proof. One Illinois farmer
is quoted as saying:
"By taxing the hogs So per cwt.
after February / the government is
taking away from the farmer through
the hog market sum equal to what
he intends to pay him for signing
contract to reduce his crop. We know
that the consumers are supposed to be
paying this tax, but they are not do
ing so, and the actions of the hog
market since the tax was announced
prove who is really paying it. The
farmer is, and will keep on doing so.
When the tax is up to So the packers
will buy live hogs that much less from
the farmer" ii;
An Iowa farmer is quoted as believ-
ing that the hog market is not able to
stand the processing tax imposed by
the government, and he adds "Unless
the processing tax is taken off OR at
least held down to fifty cents hun
bred weight, we will see lower prices
for hogs before long"
Of course if the processing tax is
taken off, somebody will have to reim-
burse the government for the money
paid to the farmers for reducing their
production of hogs, and that somebody
will be the illustrious forgotten man
"Mr. Taxpayer"
Another Illinois hog raiser is quoted
as saying:
whoever thinks the hog raiser is
not paying the tax on hogs through u
lower price is fooling himself. I sold
my prime 273 pound butcher hogs
from pure bred stock at 81 last week,
the top of the market on the day they
were marketed. Those hogs would
have brought S. just prior to the an
nouncement of the tax on hogs and
pork. AS for signing the contracts to
reduce our corn and hog production,
we would be fools if we refusci. It
is the only way we have of getting
back some of our tax money that the
packers are taking out of the hog
market to pay over to the govern
ment. No matter whether we sign
we stand the expense of it through