The Semi-weekly Madison County Democrat. (London, Ohio) 1923-19??, 1933-04-21
RETAIL SALES
TAX OPPOSED
Continued From Page One)

that it was not re-enacted. All other
states and in Canada the tax is per
manent.
The secretary Of the Penn. Drug
Association reports that the drug
gists, through competition, were COM
PEELED to absorb fully So per cent of
the one per cent tax imposed on re
tail sales. The revenue for the
state amounted to about one-fourth
of that expected.
The secretary of the Mississippi
Drug Association reports that the
druggists absorbed all of the tax on
sales under 20 cents which includes
soda fountain sales, and absorbed all
of the tax in such communities
where no agreement through organ
izations existed. Through organiza-
i tion suggestions they were able to
collect between sales of zoe and zoe.
one cent; &c between sales Of roe
and $120; &c between $1.20 and
$1.50; 4c between S1.50 and $500,
etc. Even with such agreement the
retailer could collect only 45 per cent.
You have been told by the repre-
sentative Of the retail grocers that
their average sale is under 80 cents.
The retail druggists average sale is
under so cents. Fifty cents would
be the minimum sale from which one
cent could be collected at the rate
of two per cent.
In a statement prepared from sur
vey by the Mississippi University, it
was found that sales tax was APP
proved in communities where a spirit
of cooperation among merchants ex-
listed. Or the tax was unpopular in
communities where competition OF the
cut-throat variety existed. That q
Failure to shift the tax onto the
consumer was due to lack of organ
ization among the merchants them
selves. In other words in order tc
collect the tax a trust was formed.
If there is any state in the Union
having a greater number or larger
trading centers than Ohio, ] wish to
know it. Also if there is any state
where greater or deeper cut throat
competition exists than in Ohio, !
would like to know where that state
is.
This Legislature, composed of 50
per cent attorneys, knows, and |
know that it is absolutely illegal tol
any two or more persons or for any
organization to fix a resale price to
the consumer. Our Ohio Antitrust
Act forbids this. To do in Ohio that
which is advocated in Mississippi
would bring penalty of $4,000 fine
and a year in the penitentiary. we
are not so foolish or so d. stupid as
to believe that we can do any such
thing in Ohio. And to this indlyid-
uallv by a retailer would last about
a day. am not aware that TINS
legislature is contemplating the re-
neal of our Ohio Valentine Anti
Trust Law. Nor am | aware that the
Attorney General is considering the
temporary suspension of this law.
Whenever this state will enact
law making it mandatory for the re-
taller to charge a fixed price plus
the tax for any commodity, then the
merchants will withdraw their oppo
sition to these sales taxes. You
know, and | know, that this will
never be done, for that would legahze
a trust and become a monopoly which
would cut off competition and then
raise prices to the detriment Of pub
lie welfare and policy and would be
declared unconstitutional
Retail business is in very precari
Gus condition 1t can stand no tax at
the present time. 1t is not ques-
ton these days Of making profits
1t is question how much longer can
we keep our doors open by paying
the rent and meeting our other obli-
cations. The many empty store
rooms in every city and town are
mute evidences of the struggle to
meet cut-throat below-cost competi-
ton. Every possible economy has
been employed in the cutting of
wages and overhead expenses. This
has direct bearing on the unem-
ployment and lack Of purchasing.
We are unalterably opposed to any
general retail sales tax.
The process of balancing the ma
tional budget IS now en- its way. As