Democratic Sentinel, Volume 18, Number 3, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 2 February 1894 — PLEA FOR INCOME TAX [ARTICLE]

PLEA FOR INCOME TAX

MR. M'MILLIN, OF TENNESSEE, . IN ITS FAVOR. Saji the Rich Should Pijr More Taxes— Measure Is Opposed bj the Republican Minority—lnsurgents st Rio Taught a Valuable Lesson. Debate In the House. Tho debate on the internal revenuo bill, including the provision for the income tax, began in the House Monday. Mr. MeMillin (Dem., Tenn.l. Chairman of the sub-committee of Ways and Means on Internal Revenue, began his argument. Said he: If a man owns (5U.UJ0.000 or (100,000,000 north of property in the United States, as some do, he pays only on whst be eats, what he drinks, what he wears and the other things he usea The time has come when this should be changed. 1 ask oTany reasonable person whether It is unjust to expect that a small per cent of this enormous rerenue shall be placed upon the accumulated wealth of the country Instead of placing all upon the consumption'of the country. Is It not time that the great estates, which aie protected by our army, which are defended by our navy, which are benefited by the various operations of our Government, should contribute in some greater degree to carry on that government through which alone they could have been accumulated, or by which they are to be protected? The people of the United (tales do not ask that all of It shall be placed on accumulated wealth! , But they do insist that It is not unreasonable or unjust to require that a very small proportion shall be. And yet when It Is proposed to shift this burden from thoso who cannot bear it to those who can; to divide it between consumption and wealth; to shift it from the laborer who has nothing but hi 9 power to toll and sweat to the man who has a fortune, made or inherited, we hear a hue and cry raised by some Individuals that It is unjust and inquisitorial in Its nature and should not be adopted.

Tben we Insist. Mr. Chairman, that It Is not unreasonable or unjust that a small part of this money should be collected from this accumulation. 1 know of no argument that is at all conclusive or rutionnl that can be urged against this form of taxation. I believe that onco It Is inaugurated It will not cease to be a source from which to draw some of the vast revenue that we need. Mr. Chairman, It has been the effort of ihe Ways and Means Committee to so construct the bill as to leave It, as far as possible, free from crltlctaip. Unlike the old law. It does not require a schedule from every citizen. Only those who havo $4,000 Income havo to mako a return. There is nothing in this against which any just man can complain; there is nothing to arouse fear that any 111 can come from it. It is no tax on broad. It is no embargo pluced upon prosperity. It is no effort to prevent prosperity. It is no death-blow aimed at commorce. But It Is an effort to In some way require each citizen to contribute to the government in proportion to wbat he has. Other Arguments Pro and Con. Mr. McMlllln was followed by Representative Ray (Rep. N. Y.), who opened the debate for the Republicans In opposition to the income tax. He attributed the business depression to threatened tariff changes and contrasted a Democratic policy on an Income tax during the war and at present

Mr. Tarsney (Dem.. Mo.), member of the Ways and Means Committee, followed. The income tax was first resorted to In the dark days of the civil war. When the war ended and tho people began demanding a reduction of their excessive burdens, instead of taking the taxes off the uecossarles of life by lowering the tariff rates one by one, the internal-revenue taxes were removed. The taxes which the rich wore able to bear were repealed; the taxes of the poor wore retained. This was unjust. Men should pay according to their wealth for the support and protection of the Government. There were s7o,ooo,ooU,ooV\vorth of property In this country. If oiro man owned $1,000,000,000 worth would It not be just that he should be taxed his equitable share for the proportion of his property? Mr. Dlnsmore (Dem., Ark.) said this hour was an auspicious one. as It marked a new era in taxation. It meant that tiie wealth of the country was to pay a just tribute to the Government for tho benefits it received irom the governmental system. It meant that ihe great burden of taxation was to be taken from tho shoulders of the poor. Mr. Daniels (Kep, N. Y.) called attention to the hostile attitude occupied by the Democratic party toward the income tax for years and quoted tho words of groat Democratic leaders like Samuel J. Tilden In condemnation of It. He proceeded with n careful argument against the income tax. Mr. Williams (Dem., Mlsa), in supporting the Income tax, said that It was not it new thing. It has been resorted to by every democracy since the days of Solon as the most equitable of till taxes. He was followed by Mr. Hall (Dem.. Mo.), who has been one of tho most earnest advocates of an Income tax. Taxation, as Mr. Hall asserted, came from ono of throe sources—rent, profit or wages. Ho quoted from Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and other eminent political economists In support of the principle of an Income tak. Mr. Covert (Dem.. N. Y.) In criticising the action of the Ways and Meitns Committee said he was opposed to free trado and the Income tax.