Evening star., 1943-05-26
MIR. Lawrence's Views on Taxation
Stir Readers Criticism of Ruml Plan.

Stir Readers Criticism of Ruml Plan.
To the Editor of The Star:
Your daily columnist, David Lawrence,
Is provocative man. Latest proof can
be found in his title, Double Taxation
Seen as Presidents Aim" To be his aim
must be the Presidents intent, but it
was Mr.. Lawrence's friends and not the
Presidents who proposed the pay-as-
you-go idea. This and not the Presidents
intent created the double-tax dilemma.
The President, Mr.. Lawrence writes
being such busy man, what with
Churchill and military strategy, has had
no time to study the Ruml plan He
must have been handed a draft. with
one sided advice and issued a statement
without really looking into the matter.
No doubt writing his column leaves Mr.
Lawrence more time to study the tax
question but it would be slur to infer
that some propagandist handed him the
remarks he prints on the Ruml plan,
He would Indignantly and rightfully re-
sent it. It would be as mean as his own
insinuation.
expert emitting him to disqualify others,
with all the time he has? He holds the
present income tax system started in
1913. The law was passed in October,
1913. In the debates in Congress the
point was raised that it was unfair to put
tax on incomes for the year 1913, since
most of the year had passed and there
fNr {1o +ox
accumulate the taxes out of 1918 earn
ings. The answer was that the tax was
not really being paid on income of 1913,
but that 1913 was being used as a yard
stick to measure 1914 income taxes.
AS Is perfectly evident, taxpayers had
no opportunity even to calculate 1914
taxes by March, 1914. Payment at that
time could represent nothing but tax
on 1913 income with postponement to
March, 1914, to allow accumulation of
the tax money by the taxpayers. But
let us proceed a bit farther. Admitting
that in March, 1914, an income tax was
to be paid on 1913 earnings merely as a
yardstick to measure 1914 income tax
payments, similarly in March, 1943, an
income tax was to be paid using 1912 in
come as yardstick. But the Ruml plan
proposes that we omit 1912 earnings as
a yardstick and use 1943 earnings-or
whichever is greater.
1t does not require much effort to see
that the omission of tax on one years
earnings is contemplated. In fact the
whole fight has now sinmered down to
whether 100 per cent or a smaller per-
centage should be forgiven. The con-
tinual prattle that there is only seeming
forgiveness" must be insincere.
1t must be kept in mind that income
taxes are not paid because of the elapse
of period Of time, like a year, but are
a tax on the earnings of that period.
Moving the time of payment back Or
forth does not alter that fact The earn
ings on which the tax applies are in
pocket, or spent maybe, but they are
garnered by income earners from the
public on the supposition that they will
be paid over to the Treasury on the fol-
lowing March Is.
The earnings were in an amount con-
sidered as excessive for the public well
fare by the Congress of the United States
and peculiarly taxable in equity. To this
assumption there has been very little
public dissent. If therefore they are not
paid over to the Treasury. why should
they not be rebated to the customers