The Wilmington morning star., 1946-08-07

NEW 1OhA, mug. Wy d SA oLSO,
process, the American citizen has been placed
in the position of taxpayer to Britain, Rus
STA, Italy and many other countries, his
wages, savings and estate subject to partial
confiscation for the benefit OF their people.
The allowance that he may claim for the
support OF his own wife, children and other
dependents is below the line Of poverty and
admittedly was not regarded by Congress as
adequate for even the meanest existence. Be-
You'd those deductions, the citizen must i'm
mediately begin to pay income taxes which
then are subject to the demands of foreign
nations.
He finds he is buying food for strangers
beyond the seas before his own family is fed
or clothed or housed and if he should insist
on putting down a full, detailed, reasonable
and provable account of the actual cost Of
supporting his own family, beyond the legal
allowance and should claim a dedication of
that figure, he would be faulted by Internal
Revenue and compelled to pay a tax on that
difference, plus interest starting at 4 per cent.
On the other hand, even those amounts
which are advanced u other countries in the
guise of loans bear, at most, only a nominal
rate of interest, the effect being that our
nation exacts a harsh rate from our own
people while our opposite numbers in the
debtor countries are either excused entirely
or asked tc pay only token interest.
And, if the citizen of say, Britain, through
his government, defaults his payments, it is
not even pretended that the creditors, mean
ing the Americans, shal have any means of
alta ching the earnings or property of those
foreigners in their own lands. BY contrast,
if the American default his taxes, his gov
eminent may proceed to sell him out, par
ticularly if he has died, and collect the deficit
and the 6 per cent from the estate which
he has tried to leave to carry on, after death,
his moral obligation to his dependents, his
wife, for instance. Except In a few western
states, the federal income tax rejects the
proposition that marriage is a material or
economic as well as a spiritual partnership
and holds that a wife's share of the husbands
earnings IS a gift, not a share. He may give
her, at present, $50 a year free Of taxes
after an initial gift of $40, 600, but, beyond
that amount, must pay taxes applicable, in
part, to the cost Of social and political ex-
periments outside the United States. But he
must keep a record of his gifts to his wife
and report them to Washington and should
he fail to do so, upon his death these gifts
will be regarded as part OF her inheritance
and will be taxed.
It is the habit Of those who defend all this,
" Tia p1O3OOO l ~. Si4O1
and that a wife who has received $40, 900 and,
say SIS, 0Go in annual gifts Of So, 900 each, Is
rich. She may be rica by comparison with
a widow with no money at all or $4,000,
but the income on that $55, 600 at 3 per cent,
would be only 81, $50 q year, subject, Incl
dentally, to income tax and subject, also, to
the risks of investment under a government
which has made investment precarious. True,
she might, and probably would, try to guess
her oun life eYnecfancv and draw nm her
principal but that is a delicate problem of
reckoning.
The old popular theory Of the purpose Of
taxation was that citizens supported their gov
eminent in return tor services to them. Under
the R o osevel government, propaganda
changed this concept to the extent that many
citizens now believed the primary and legiti-
mate purpose was to sock the rich, and dis
tribute their Accommodations. Wealth, of itself,
was condemned as somehow pernicious and
a menace to the poor and the government.
Yet, when such wealth has been collected
from the estate of a rich man, it is spent
for the expenses of government, including,
nowadays the expenses OF other governments
and thereafter pays no taxes, as it would in
the possession of heirs. just where riches be-
gin is a debatable question but Congress made
a political and social decision, without eco
nornic basis, in establishing the $40, COO figure.
IIlO lie Y lie ldSl lew yCdIS
is the proposal that persons who are unem-
ployed by their own decision not to cross
picket lines are entitled to pay from the
national end state governments. The amounts
vary above a minimum of SIS a week but
some unions seriously advocate a minimum
of $257 a week for 26 weeks in one year.
The possibilities and ramifications OF this
scheme are too many and complex for dis
cussion here today but, at once It will be
seen that private political organizations, pay
ing no taxes themselves but cole citing enor-
nous treasures through taxes, would call
strikes to serve their ends and then would
shift the burden Of paying strike benefits,
their own ancient responsibility, to the public
treasury. The taxpayers would have no right
to examine the reasons for the strike and
say this strike is unjustified and we will
not pay unemployment benefits" Yet, in a
family of four workers under one roof, made
idle by an arbitrary and unjustified strike
the income would be 500 a week from the
government, subject TO no taxes, but payable
by other families, not on strike, whose aggre-
gate earnings were less.
That the American citizen ever would be
called upon to pay taxes to support others
who had deliberately chosen to be idle or
were made idle by the snap decree of a
communist or underworld gang unioneer, GER
tainly was no part of the pure theory of tax
alton.
During the strike ct the United Auto
Workers against General Motors, a political
group, including Mrs Eleanor Roosevelt, is
c,aJ -,..L1a4, eoJio;tirC contributions tn ,