Democratic Sentinel, Volume 6, Number 6, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 10 March 1882 — The Tax Juggle. [ARTICLE]

The Tax Juggle.

Says the protected manufacturer: “Why, don’t we manufacturers pay our proportion with the rest ? The hatter pays his 25 per cent, to the shoemaker, the shoemaker pays his 25 per cent, to the hatter, and out of the increased prices we are all able to pay the farmer more, and so it goes; everybody gets "higher profits, and it is a goad thing all around!” Let us simplify. Suppose we have a community consisting of a hatter, shoemaker and a farmer. The farmer hoes

his own row, asking odds of nobody ; but the hatter and the shoemaker demand a bonus of SSO a year each. Now, on the protection plan, will they get it ? It would be too barefaced a steal to levy a tax on the farmer alone. They will not do that Avoiding the api>earance of unjust discrimination, they will put a tax on all consumers of hats and shoes ; they will make all purchasers of hats and shoes contribute .alike to the Eroteoliou fund. Very fair, this looks : ut mark the singular result: The hatter pays SSO a year to fostor the shoe industry. The shoemaker pays SSO a year to foster the hat industry. These two transactions balance each other. Neither the hatter nor the shoemaker are out of pocket a penuy. But the farmer ? He pays SSO a year to foster the hat industry, aud SSO a year to foster the shoe industry; total, SIOO. He receives—nothing. His industry is not “fostered.” There it is in a nut shell. The protection tax is laid on all alike. But, when the books are balanced, the hatter and the shoemaker are in SSO each, and the farmer is out SIOO. Who is it that pays for protection ? Graham M oA dam.