OCR Text |
Show paying almost one-third in federal fed-eral income tax alone. Individual income tax accounts ac-counts for about one-hall of Uncle's revenues, or about $32 billion in 1956. Corporations pay a basic rate of 30 on the first $25,000 of income and 52 on all over that they contribute about $20 billion bil-lion to the treasury's coffers. Individuals who own corporate corpor-ate stock and there are eight to ten million of them now are usually hit by "double taxation." The profits made by a company in which they hold stock are taxed and then when the owner of the stock receives dividends on his investment it is taxed again as personal income. The 1 month. These people, who formerly form-erly thought stiff tax rates applied ap-plied only to the wealthy, now find themselves in a tax bracket brack-et where income taxes are at their stiffest. Television quiz programs, where a person has the choice of risking already-won money, have contributed to public a-wareness a-wareness of high income tax rates. A person will seldom risk money in his pocket to earn, or win, more when he knows that the bulk of what he might win will go to the tax collector. T. Coleman Andrews, former head of the internal revenue i ductions over a five year period per-iod for both individuals and corporations. cor-porations. The NAM plan would gradually reduce the progressive progress-ive rates on personal income until un-til a total tax ceiling of 35 existed. Corporation income tax would also come down gradually through five years until there, too, a ceiling of 35 was achieved. ' NAM argues that this type of tax relief is needed so that there will be more money available avail-able for industrial expansion, this expansion being vital to the creation of jobs for the 1,- nnn Ann jj.-j- i i NAM HAS METHOD TO CUT TAXES AND BALANCE BUDGET By Floyd Hopkins With the probability of a federal fed-eral budget surplus this year and talk of tax cuts, let's look at the present tax system so we'll know something about the subject when various tax reduction re-duction schemes are suggested to Congress by various interested interest-ed groups. The federal income tax laws under which we now live date to 1913 and the sixteenth amendment amend-ment to the Constitution. Twice before 1913 income tax laws were passed but in both instances instanc-es were discarded as "unconstitutional". "uncon-stitutional". The first income tax rates ranged from 1 to a maximum of 8. Opponents of the amendment amend-ment warned, with what was then considered mild hysteria, that the door was left open to "rates as high as 10!". Every taxpayer today pays a minimum of twice that a-mount; a-mount; some taxpayers pay nine times that amount on part of of their income. The rates paid by all of us in between would have been termed "fantastic" in 1913 wuu.uuu duuiuunai wuikcis entering en-tering the labor force each year. Too, the NAM states, present tax rates don't allow for much of a return on investment capital capi-tal so that this vital source of money for industry is slowly drying up. Briefly, the AFL-CIO plan would result in more money now in the pockets of the taxpayers; tax-payers; the NAM plan would mean more jobs available for the increasing working force. Clearly, one is a short-term, the other a long-term, gain. service, has also focused attention at-tention on the subject with his statements of "let's abolish the income tax." There are many proponents for tax revision, but few go as far as Andrews. TAX PLANS OUTLINED There are two primary schools of thought on tax reduction. One is examplified in the program pro-gram advocated by the AFL-CIO, AFL-CIO, the other is proposed by the National Assn. of Monufact-urers. Monufact-urers. The AFL-CIO plan calls for 3 tax law of 1954 gave some re-" re-" lief to such persons by exempt-" exempt-" ing the first $50 of dividends for a single person and $100 for a married person. 1 Danger of too-stiff taxation is evidenced in England, where i today only about 200 persons . have income of 6,000 pounds 1 (16,800) a year after taxes. In that country, taxation was 'used for social, rather than fiscal, purposes, with the result that many were dragged down to a common level but nobody was raised up. The deplorable state testimony to the fallacy of of the British economy today is such tactics. TAXES WIDLEY CRITICIZED There are many criticisms of our present income tax: it's too complicated it discriminates against the low-income taxpayer taxpay-er it discriminates against the high-income taxpayers; it destroys de-stroys initiative it penalizes success. Only on the first point are most parties agreed. The income tax laws have had no real revamping since 1913. Consequently, changes in the law and there have been plenty amount to a deduction tacked on here or an exemption The AFL-CIO program of increasing in-creasing personal exemptions to $800 the first year and $1,-000 $1,-000 the second year would remove re-move 7,000,000 people from the tax l-olls the first year and 15,-000,000 15,-000,000 the second. No poll has been taken on the AFL-CIO plan, but a recent poll of the NAM program for a tax ceiling of 35 was approved ap-proved by a majority of those questioned. Many of those polled, in fact, expressed amazement amaze-ment that tax rates went as high as 35 and when told they went to 91 they "could hardly hard-ly believe it." an increase in personal exemption exemp-tion from $600 per person to $800 per person the first year, and an increase to $1,000 the next year. The union argues that this would leave more mo ney in the hands of the consumer con-sumer so that he would buy more things and create demand for more goods. This, the union says, would increase production produc-tion and, at the same time increase in-crease prosperity. The union plan would also stiffen the tax paid by corporations corpora-tions and business men. The NAM program is not as simple and is based on tax re- . Each taxpayer, whether he earns a taxable $2,000 a year or $200,000 a year, pays a basic rate of 20 on all his taxable income. If your taxable income exceeds $200,000 you are in the surtax or progressive brackets. brack-ets. "Progression" means the more you make the higher rate you pay. Progressive rates start at 2 at $2,000 and run to 71 at $200,000. As an example, a person per-son with a taxable income of $6,000 a year pays the basic rate of 20 and a surtax rate of 10 which means that he is snipped off there until now it is often compared to a "crazy quilt." Those who feel the income tax discriminates against the low-income taxpayer argue that, although upp.?r rates are admittedly ad-mittedly high, loop holes allow the high-income man to escape from the high apparent rates into in-to the lower actual rates. The progressive rates, which range to 91, are deemed discriminatory dis-criminatory by those who feel the high-income person is hit too hard. Those who feel that the income in-come tax destroys initiative maintain that the nigh rates far from encourage people to work harder and "get ahead." Before thinking about 'getting ahead' today, a man looks to see what tax bracket he'll be getting himself him-self ahead into and then thinks twice about working for Uncle Sam,' " this school asserts. Many feel that it is unfair for extra effort to be rewarded by extra tax. They hold that it is not right for Uncle Sam to take nine-tenths of a man's earnings or half, for that mat ter. Awareness of high taxes has increased lately partly because i many skilled workers, semiskilled semi-skilled workers and small business busi-ness men are getting into tax brackets of the upper middle class. It is not unusual for skilled worker, and many laborers, labor-ers, to earn a taxable $500 a |