Askov American., 1943-06-24
War Profits To Keep

The President has called this an
Na1 out" war. That means not only
all out to the men at the war front
who certainly offer their all, but
all out in effort, property and money
to those on the home front. Certainly
ii must mean the elimination of huge
war profits.
In the first World war there was
created $4,000 new millionaires in
the United States, and how we'll we
remember the havoc that centraliza-
ton of wealth created-the lack of
buying power on the part of the
masses in the twentieS and in the
thirties.
Former service men of World War
/ passed resolutions time and again
for the conscription of wealth as
well as men in the event of another
war. Huge war profits are again
being made. But is the wealth being
conscripted as are men?
We are not here making an argu-
ment for the conscription of wealth
for loose or reckless spending, but
even through the most careful and
cautious spending of public money,
the war cost will run into billions
upon billions The cost cannot be
met all at once, but the less left for
future payment the better all around
Those who pay in blood are gone,
those who pay in money still live.
The Ruml income tax plan was
just a scheme to salt away war
profits.
In order to get the Federal in
come tax up-to-date, paid the same
year as earned instead of the fol-
lowing year-on pay-aS-you-go
basis-it was proposed that one year
of taxes should be forgiven alto
gether. The net result-the compro-
mise-was forgiveness of IS per cent
of the tax for 1912 or 1943. That
IS per cent can be Salted away.
In defense of the Ruml plan-or
the compromise, which was most OF
the plant is argued that taxpayers
will pay l25 per cent for one year
instead of 100 per cent, and that the
benefit will come only when the tax
payer dies. If the taxpayer dies
say in 1850, there will be no income
tax to pay in 1851 for it was up-to-
date and paid in 1850 while the tax
payer was living.
The 125 per cent argument
misses Intentionally or uninten-
tiOnally this point: War profits
are being made during, and not
after the war.
The years 1912 and l943 will be
among the fat ones for the war pro-
fiteers. The year after the war will
not be so good, possibly no profit for
the big industrialist. Suppose the
war ended in 1945. That, of course
would also be good year for the
war industry. The tax would be
paid up-to-date for the year and nc
income tax to be paid in 1916 when
The business is down.
That brings us back to the present
The rs per cent saving to the tax
payer for 1912 or 1943, when huge
profits were made, is salted away
That is the crux of the Ruml plan
1t was thought best to collect the
Federal income tax on wage earn
ers on pay-as-you-go basis, at the
source, from their employers. Nc
doubt that will save time and ex-
pense and circumvent delinquency
and losses. The Victory tax was al
reading being collected in that man.
ner-through payroll deductions.
Making the income tax up-to-date
to those receiving wages and sal
aries, Congress did the same to other
individuals, businessmen and corpor-
atoms. There was the chance for
the big killing. Much discussion took
place, it was voted up and down in
House and Senate and finally a con-
ference committee report was
adopted.
The war profiteers started out
by asking for 100 per cent for
giveness. Had they been able to
pocket Is per cent of one years
tax that would have been a big
gain for them, but they got IS
Per cent-nOt bad for their ef-
fOrtS-but not SO good for the
country.
Efforts to stop initiation are being
urged. Payment of the income tax
in full, in addition to the pay-as-you-
60 payments, would have helped ma
terially to draw off excess buying
power which aggravates the infla-
tionary trend.
The majority of Minnesota con-
gressmen voted with wealth for the
Ruml plan. One of those-Harold
Knutson-from this, the Sixth dis