Toledo union journal. [volume] (Toledo, Ohio) 1942-current, 1945-12-07
Time for
Plain Talk

Editors Note: The following
letter was written by Council
man Tom Burke in reply to a
Union member who did not
understand the workings OF
the municipal income tax re-
Gently proposed in City Coun-
Gil by Mr.. Burke.
Dear Friend:
l am very happy to have
received your letter express
ing your thoughts on the tax
revision proposal.
] can see where you are un-
der the impression that in
troduced both a utilities tax
and an income tax. / did not
introduce the utilities tax
measure. That was done by
another member of Council.
In fact l am opposed to It on
the grounds that it is a sales
tax which is an indirect tax
on income that socks the low
income people the hardest be-
cause it takes a bigger per-
centage of their income.
The income tax proposal is
only one feature of a complete
revision of the tax system. My
proposal is one that has al
ways come from organized la
Dor because IL seeks to estab-
lish our entire taxation system
on the basis of the ability to
pay.
| am enclosing copy
Of my original resolution for
your information.
This resolution was changed
by Council only to the extent
of the makeup of the Com
mittee by leaving out the citi-
zen members and including
all of City Council; also the
date for report was changed
to January /, 1946 instead of
July /. The rest of ii remains
the same. II is my opinion
that whatever the details
worked out in this plan, 1t
would have TO be voted on by
the people because it Is a
change of our basic system
and would require several
charter amendments.
ABILITY TO PAY
In building my proposal |
started on the premise that
taxation to be equitable must
be based on the ability to pay
and that real estate is no long
er the basic measure of wealth
in this country. / also felt that
you and all other working
people do not want any furth-
er curtailment Of community
services, but rather an exten-
sion of them because II this
city goes any further back in
these services only one thing
can result, and that is less
business activity, less employ
ment, and property values
falling 10 the vanishing point.
/ further believe that you
do not want cut In income
20 city employees because
they are not your natural
enemies, but t'sther are work
ing people with the same gem
eral obiectives you have for a
high standard of living. II
their standard OF living Is re-
duced, your employer can and
will use that reduction as a
pace setter for reducing your
standard.
The whole theory OF organiz-
ed labor Is that a nation can
not exist half slave and half
free and therefore all work
ers must enjoy and participate
in a decent American stan
dard Of living. That is why
you insist, as a Union mem
ber, that your Union carry on
a continuous program 10 or
ganize the unorganized.
DIFFERENT PROGRAM
When / introduced this pro-
posal, ] gave an explanation,
that set forth the following
facts. Some cities have adopt
ed an income tax but in all
cases this program is radically
different because:
Their income tax Is
supplemental TO the
other forms OF taxation
and is not a part OF a
revision pro gram.
Therefore, il only adds
more TO tax burdens.
2 These other programs
are not true income tax
but are payroll tax.
This program Ia a tax
on all income and does
not exempt corporation
or investment yield in
comes as do the others.
3 The other cities start
their programs a zero.
This proposal provides
for a minimum starting
income with depend
ency exemptions. The
minimum starting in
l. 4