The Waterbury Democrat., 1941-03-07

responsibility to write the new tick ct, find new or additional sources of revenue which will yield annually from one and @ half to three bil- lion dollars, on top of the seven billions in taxes already collected.
 Whatever comes out from under the collective committee hat, there are headaches ahead for the people who write the tax bill, the people who have to collect 1t and the peo- pie who have to pay 1t. UNJUST-BUT NECESSARY?
 Right now, federal tax income di- vides like this:
 From gas, liquor, tobacco and other consumption taxes, g 1-4 billion. "f
 From income and estate taxes, $l% billion. r
 From corporation and excess prof. Its taxes, SEA billion.
 From social security taxes, $% billion. .,n..
 Present estimates are that the broadening of tho income tax for this years payments, making 1t hit lot more people of smaller in- comes, will yield $l4 million, but 1t will cost $8 million-60% of the take--to collect. Further broaden ing of the tax might cost propor- tionately more, so there are bugs in that.
 One idea that Is still banded about, in spite of the fact that 1t has been previously killed by Con- gress in 1917, 1921 and 1882, Is the general manufacturers sales tax. Proponents of this form of tax ad- nit that 1t Is in many ways un- just, but as Senator Prentiss M. Brown of St. Ignace, Mich, says, Tt Is more important to raise the money than 1t is to be entirely just, if 1t Is the only way we can raise the money"
 A FEW
 DIFFICULTIES
 Thirty-two states now have re- tail sales taxes of one kind and another. which yield about l5 per cent of the states total income. The retail sales tax field is therefore one which the federal government wants to stay out of.
 The federal government does now have certain selective taxes, the in- ternal revenue taxes on tobacco, liquor, automobiles, tires, electrical energy and the like. The success of these taxes Is one thing that leads some people to believe that a general manufacturers sales tax is the easiest way to make the gov- ernment gravy train run both ways, but the grief of manufacturers tax administration and collection is so abysmal as to make 1t seem hope less.
 Take, as an example, the pains in the neck of @ simple manufac- turers' sales tax on cosmetics.
 In the first place, define 0 manu- facturer. Is he the man who manu- factures witch hazel. or the one who puts up witch hazel and balm in flve-gallon cans, selling It cheap, or the fellow who takes 1t out of the can, adds a smell of rosewater, puts 1t in Q two-ounce bottle, pastes on a label, does a lot of advertising and sells 1t to the drug store or the drug wholesaler as Eau de
 Second, at what price level will the tax be applied? An average dime lpistick is 9 cents, goo, 4 cents adv, 2 cents label and .on- tainer, ? cents profit. Do you tax the goo maker and the label maker before they ship their vile and ware to the assembler, or do you wait till the internal things are ready to do damage? If the latter, you are taxing insurance and transpor- tation. The point is to get back to an P. o. B. manufacturer before applying the tax. LET'S .' ..' DON'T urr.
 Then, how about pyramiding the taxp If the hair dye manufacturer is taxed, he adds tax hairs to his price to the packager. The pack ager adds his transformation profit to that, the wholesaler adds his toupee of profit to that, and the re- taller passes it all on with full grown whiskers to the customer. And up goes the cost of living.
 If you exempt all raw materials, you have to have a system of li- censes, with fees and bonds to keep track of exemptions.
 A thing like this obviously can't be a temporary measure, just for the war. It would take five years to set up a field oganization-an army to collect the taxes to keep the army that isn't going to fight. Let's not.