OCR Text |
Show FEDERAL TAX REVISION In an editorial on the above subject The New York Times says, "this is a billion dollar country, but it manages its affairs in a manner which would bankrupt bank-rupt a billion dollar private corporation. The last tax bill provided billions more than could be spent, and yet billions less than will soon be needed." It then says congress proposes to make present provisions for future needs, and declares that the coming congressional con-gressional elections will come into the equation from the fact that the ta xbills are badly constructed. After deploring the political side of the case it declare. vt What the taxpayers need is not relief from taxes, but relief from methods of levying taxes which are bad partly by design and partly for reasons which are excusable, although there is no excuse for delay in remedying them. The editorial then gives some real figures which show the inequality of the law, and which demonstrate demon-strate again the fact that "the South is in the saddle." Here is what it says: "The tax bill was vicious in so far as it was designedly de-signedly apportioned inequitably. It was the intention inten-tion and the boast of the lawmakers that the burden of the income tax should fall rather on the grain and industrial States than on the cotton States. The result re-sult is that in 1916 Southern States paid $3,109,000 individual income taxes and Northern States $53,-839,000 $53,-839,000 in a total tax payment of $67,900,000. In 1917 the figures for the same Southern States were $10,-836,000, $10,-836,000, for the same Northern States $127,973,000, in a total of $160,528,000. The designed effect having hav-ing followed, the country should have an opportunity opportun-ity to express its mind about it while the occurrence is still fresh." |