The Indianapolis times. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1922-1965, 1936-03-05

holdings should be subject to the same taxation as
similar holdings privately owned And why not?
True, the RFC invested in bank securities not to
make profit but merely to provide new capital to
make the banks sounder institutions Yet in doing
SO, the RFC entered into the business of being
bank for banks And when the government goes into
business why shouldn't it be subject to the same
tax liabilities as would be assessed against any SIM
liar privately owned corporation?
Frequently, we of this newspaper have defended
public ownership and operation of utilities great
many such plants have proved their WORTH by pro-
vding the people with electricity, gas and water at
cheaper rates than charged by comparable private
concerns. But have admitted that when any
such plant fails to set off in its bookkeeping entries
an item commensurate with the tax bill privately
owned plant would have to pay, the rates charged
by that public plant can in no true sense be de-
scribed "yardstick rates"
THE whole proposition of exemptions and favor
itism is repugnant to our Republics ideal of
equal rights and equal responsibilities
Our governments-Federal, state and local-bor-
row money by selling bonds which are tax exempt
and the income from which is tax exempt. This en-
abes the governments to borrow money at interest
markets and thereby encourages the governments
to borrow beyond their means. AS it works out, one
man engaged in busness with risks may realize an
income of $4,000 and another, without any risk
whatever, may realize the same income from gov
eminent securities The first man has to pay size
able tax bill, and the second pays no tax whatever
That is not fair.
CONGRESSMEN do not pay state income taxes
~ on the $4,000 salaries they receive from the
Federal government, and state officials do not pay
Federal income taxes on the salaries they receive
from the states. Yet common citizens have to pay
income taxes to both governments. The principle of
law that one government can not tax what tows
from another, without consent of the other has
been carried far that the Supreme Court has held
state government could not tax the oil drilled
on an Indians land because the, Indian ward
of the Federal government, and that the Federal
government could not tax the income of corpora
ton derived from oil drilled state school land,
because school children were wards Of the state.
The postal system is the largest and most sue
cessful example of the government in business. Yet
no one knows whether in the net it operates at
a profit or a loss Other governmental departments
frank" their mail. The system pays out tremen-
dous subsidies to ocean and air carriers, and news
papers are delivered practically free of charge in
the county of publication.
MORE familiar Inconsistencies are those that
AVA arise from legislation which pressure groups
lobby through state legislatures and city councils
college fraternity may own mansion exempt from
taxation, while college boarding house next door
is subject to taxes Lodges and churches have their
properties taken off the rolls, all of which adds to
the tax burden of properties remaining on the rolls.
Instead of system of equal rights for all, we
are building up system of special privilege for
those who can get it. Those who can't pay the bill.
And as concluding observation on the PROPOSE
ton that the property of one government be exempt
from taxes of other units, we offer this:
There has been considerable talk of the Fed
eral government taking the railroads. A
great many states, cities and counties get a large
part of their tax from railroads. What
will happen to the budgets of those local units if the
government steps in and takes all railroad proper
ties off the tax rolls?