The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1936-01-24

HOUSEWIVES still waiting for the lower
prices they thought the AAA death sentence
would bring.
The wait may be long
For two years processing taxes have been blamed
by many for rising costs of food and clothing. Re-
moval OF the tax has not caused reductions Of the
sort such statements would seem to warrant.
Flour has been reduced s1.35 barrel, but with
the exception of Philadelphia, where one grocery
chain cut the price of bread cent loaf, Washing
ton has had official report of bread reductions.
Sugar is down Is cents hundred pounds in come
cities but there is doubt how much effect the
AAA decision has on sugar. The tariff reduc5'on
that accompanied imposition of the sugar processing
tax offset the effect of the tax to the consumer
Corn products, such syrup and starch, are down
from to cents case an amount too small 10
affect the consumer. Cake -four, buckwheat flour
and pancake -four are down II cents hundred
pounds Tobacco rice, peanuts and potatoes are
Just where they were before the decision.
Producers of live hogs are getting Is cents 100
pounds more than before the decision and VIII de
salers buying the meat for $125 less, but that
accounts for only $3.50 of the 1925 hundred given
back to packers by the Supreme Court decision
Retail pork prices have not come down. Ham and
bacon Will not do so Tor some Jlme, IL Is
because storage stocks are far below normal
Bakers say they can't reduce bread because they
have stocks of -four bought at high prices. Some
of them say the social security tax makes reductions
impossible.
OFFICERS of the National Retail Dry Goods AS
" ISOLATION have advised members against reduc-
ing cotton goods prices. The Underwear Institute
customers until
the smoke has cleared" The seamless division OF
m, Southern Hosiery Association adopted resou-
ton promising not to reduce prices The gray cot
ton goods producers frankly worked to halt at
cents the price decline that began after the decision
The amount OF the tax was ~ cents.
Neither does it seem likely that consumers will
benefit from the 2oo0o00O0 refund of impounded
processing taxes ordered by the Supreme Court Ihe
court said the money should be restored to process
sors
AAA officials have considerable evidence that
processing taxes were passed along to the consumer
Including testimony to that effect by packers ana
others The AAA sponsored legislation, aoopteo
last year by Congress, providing that II return Oh
impounded funds was ordered by the courts tney
should be paid only to those able to prove they hao
not passed the tax along to the consumer In spiCe
of this mandate the court ruled in favor Of process
sors.
officials are avoiding statements which could be
construed as critical of the court They point OUT
however that last years legislation expresses their
point of view of just approach to the subject Ana
Secretary Wallace has expressed a doubt as to
whether public opinion will tolerate payments 10
the professors of taxes which clearly have neen
passed on to the consumers.
The American Farm Bureau Federation has oeen
more outspoken ut is obviously unfair for lew
big professors to obtain such refunds when the bur-
den of such taxes has been shifted to the consum-
ers or back to the producers by the professors"
it says.
ITO permit such professors to claim or recover
such taxes would be e;l unjust enrichment"
If the Supreme Court eventually orders the re-
turn to processes of the billion dollars collected
as processing taxes and paid out in benefit checks
the consumer will bear a double burden. He bore
the original cost of the tax in most cases. and will
pay the taxes the government will have to levy
to meet such requirement.