| Show townsend plan termed absurd by economists group of prominent economists are grossly inconsistent in their representations the statements of a group of well known economists before the house ways and means committee as reported by the christian science monitor in an effort to block passage of the townsend bill which proposes pensions to all citizens of the united states over 60 years of age not gainfully employed are at least inconsistent dr harold C moulton president of the brookings institute and a group of college professors appeared before the committee to pronounce the townsend plan fantastic dr moulton is quoted a as s saying on the basis of present national income it is doubtful whether the townsend proposal would yield more than 30 a month for old people and rising prices would decrease the buying power of that in the next breath dr moulton told the committee that the 2 per cent transaction tax proposed by the townsend bill sounds innocent enough but if applied as intended would absorb from 25 to 30 per cent of the na dional income he explained a tax on transactions pyramids for the simple reason that one product is sold many times the townsend plan would increase tax receipts to something like compared with the present total of the transaction tax in the townsend plan would yield more than the general W welfare e I 1 f a r e federations proposed gross income tax dr moulton declared now if any of you readers can reconcile the foregoing statements you have a more elastic comprehension than we have As we figure it would require to pay ten million people 30 per month for 12 months and ac cording to dr Moul tons estimate the 2 per cent transaction tax would increase the national tax receipts from 12 to 32 billion dol lars or give a net yield of 20 billion dollars a year we suggest that the ways and means committee quit calling in college professors to advise them on questions of national economy and call in a few sixth or seventh grade students their information will probably prove more accurate why asked dr moulton should the masses contribute substantial sums out of their meager income for the support on a vastly higher plane of living of those whose families are reared and whose needs are much less than when they were younger the masses he said would have to contribute indirectly if not directly because a succession of sales takes taxes on transactions would cumulatively lat ively advance prices and affect the standard of living all of which iv 45 ts 4 townsend plan is termed absurd continued from first page is is quite reasonable but what he fails to take into account is first chato we all get to be old people if we live long enough and statistics prove that very few are economically omi cally self sufficient at 65 to 70 years so it dislike is like paying life insurance su rance or saving for old age security something that all economists fully approve again dr moulton fails to take into account the new business opportunity and prosperity that would be stimulated d by the circulation re of this amount of money through the en tare economic structure from the very bottom to the top which would greatly increase the national income the opportunity for jobs and business enterprise at any rate we would like to see consistency and veracity and the old plan of trial and error is not a bad way of ascertaining the value and practicability of any plan if after due trial the townsend plan is found to be fantastic and unworkable there is nothing to prevent congress from repealing it and in the meant meantime ime it would add nothing to the national governments debt for it at lest le st offers a plan of paying for our relief as we go along |
