Voice of action. [volume] (Seattle, Wash.) 1933-1936, 1935-01-25
Miss Van KIeeck
EnplainsJ Obless
Insurance Bill
Shows Sources Of Income for Measure; Proves
1t Is Practical
Continued from Page Two)

Comparisons OF taxation in the
United States and in England re-
veal the fact that Great Britain
has been able to collect income
taxes more effectively than has
the United States.
At the level of $1,000, for ex-
ample, Great Britain collects 1422
per cent, and the United States
per cent. On an annual income
of $4,000, Great Britain collects
29.47 per cent, and the United
States, zoos. At the level of $780,
900, Great Britain collects 4S.1
per cent, and the United States,
30.1.
Likewise in inheritance taxes
the percentage collected in Great
Britain is much larger than in
the United States. The United
States exempts all estates of
net value OF less than 100000.
On an estate valued at 100000
Great Britain collects per cent,
: and the United States L5. On an
estate of $40, 900, 600. Great Britain
collects 81 per cent, and the Unit
ed States 1904.
OF course it must be remem-
bered that some 30 states have in
come tax laws, but in only three
states is the top rate more than
per cent. And though state in
heritance taxes must also be con-
sidered in comparisons between
the United States and Great Brit
ain, nevertheless the federal gov
eminent permits credit for large
part of the state inheritance
taxes, since taxpayer may pay
his federal tax with state tax re-
ceipts.
Moreover, as the article cited
points out, Great Britain more
successfully collects taxes, by
taking them at the source, in
stead of pOstponing collection un-
til after receipt of income.
In connection with the income
tax. attention should be given to
tax exemptions on governmental
securities, thus resulting in with
holding income from taxation.
Moreover, certain provisions of
the income tax laws which permit
deduction of losses from total in
come have been clearly shown
in recent Investigations to have
exempted some of the largest re-
cievers OF income from payment
of any income at all.
1t seems obvious that proper
revision of the income tax law
would produce increased reve-
nue., which should be used to in
crease purchasing power through
unemployment insurance.
But there are other sources to
be examined. One of them, al
ready put forward by advocates
of the Workers Bill, though not
included in the bill itself, is to
curtail expenditures for war.
Those who complain of high taxes
would do well to note the high
proportion of those taxes which
go for wars, past and future.
For example, in a book, entitl-
ed, Recent Social Trends" CIV
ing the report of the Presidents
Research Committee OH Social
Trends, appointed by President
Hoover, it is estimated that of
total tax collections, federal,
state and local, in 1880, 25.S per
cent was expended Off war, as
compared with 21.1 per cent for
education.
Thus in a very direct sense the
struggle against war is a struggle
for economic security by saving
the nations income for expendi-
lures in the public interest, not
to mention the devastating eff
fects of war upon the productive
forces of the nation and hence
the undermining of standards of
living and OF economic security,
resulting from the economic char
acteristic of wars.
In the recent debate on social
insurance in the New Masses,
the opponent of the Workers
Bill, DR.. |. M. Rubinow, under
takes to demonstrate that the
cost of the Workers Bill would
be so high in proportion to the
amount collectible from income
taxes that it would amount to
total confiscation of profits"
And he asks: where will be
the incentive to make profits If
they are to be confiscated?"
He estimates the weekly cost
of the Workers Bill as 20 million
dollars for the minimum of $40
per week, if So for each depend
ent were paid; or as 1856 million
or more as average wagse must
be paid" or an annual cost of
between IL and 20 billion.
He estimates that even in terms
of 1929 income, only Is billions
of personal income would be
available for taxation, and IL bill
lions Incorporation profits, and
that, in view OF the reduction
during the depression, probably
only Is billions would be taxable
and only its complete confiscation
would pay the annual cost esti-
mated for the unemployed.
If we are to accept DR.. Rub