Evening Republican, Volume 22, Number 132, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 5 June 1919 — Sporting Goods Tax Falls Hardest on the Boy Athletes of the Nation [ARTICLE]

Sporting Goods Tax Falls Hardest on the Boy Athletes of the Nation

By HUGH FULLERTON

Last year sporting goods either escaped taxation .entirely or were taxed on certain articles 3 per cent This year all sporting goods are taxed 10 per cent. Other “luxuries” or “semi-luxuries” are taxed 2, ?or 5 per cent—jewelry 3, chewing gum 2, cosmetics 3, and so on. I don’t care how much they tax sporting goods, but I make a big distinction between sporting goods and athletic goods. a v ja The committee which fixed the tax on sporting goods had the idea that they were taxing the major leagues and “rich sportsmen.’ The fact is that all the professional ball clubs, in the United States buy less than one-half of .1 per cent of the sporting goods manufactured (and that almost' at cost for advertising purposes), while over 40 per cent (some sav 70) are bought by boys under eighteen years of age. The tax falls hardest upon the boy athletes. You know how important it is to develop the boy athletes in this country. Congress itself has said it wanted to encourage them, and then by a boneheaded blunder soaks them with a 10 per cent tax meant to hit others. The tax does not hit the manufacturer, as he passes it on. The manufacturer will simply add the tax and collect it when the goods are delivered. I don’t care how much they tax sporting £>ods. Anyone who can afford to buv a SIOO gun or SSO fishing rod or a S4O pair of wading boots ought to be ‘taxed, but the kids can’t afford it. Every article the kids use in baseball, football, tennis, basket ball or any other game is taxed. My idea is that athletic goods ought to be distinguished from sporting goods and exempted from taxation to encourage the development of young athletes.