The Income Tax

"The Aigus seems to overlook the fact that to tax incomes is to visit a penalty on success, besids violatíng a fundamental principie by discriminating in favor of the idle and thriftless. It is class legislation wbich once started, may einl in levying a tax on men with red hair, or a turn-up nose." - Ypsilantian. No brother, the Argus does not overlook the fact, for no such fact exists. No tax levied by a just government, a government which faithfully executes the purposes for which all such govejrnments are instituted, can in any proper sense be looked upon as a penalty. The only right the government has to demand a portion of the earnings of its subjects for its support lies in the supposed return of an exact equivalent in the protection afforded. It becomes the duty of every subject of the government, therefore to pay towards its support according to the : benefits received; that is, in pro'portion to the revenue each enjoys ; under its protection. The expenses ■ of a government to the individual subjects are, or should be, like the expenses of a great Corporation to ts stockholders, who are compelled :o contribute in proportion to their respctive stock in the corporation. No one for a moment questions the ustness of this rule. This principie being generally recognized, therefore, why should it be any more of a penalty on success to require the rich to pay their proportionate amount of the government burden, than to require the large stock holder in a corporation to bear its expenses in proportion to his stock? It is absurd to claim that such a method of collecting revenue places a penalty on success or discriminates in favor of the idle and thriftless, which in this discussion includes all who have an.income under the amount exempted by the income tax bill. Who wo.uld not gladly pay two per cent. of the amount, if they could be insured an annual stipend of $4,000 ? The Argus would be most happy to do so. How is it with yon, Mr. Ypsilantian ? Any equitable system of taxation requires equality of sacrifice as to ability. That th&re is anything approaching to equality of sacrifice in our system of indirect taxation, or taxation upon consumption, is preposterous. The poor man, with a family to support, may pay quite as much toward the niaintenance of the government as the man with an income of ten thousand dollars a year. No one will claim that the consumption of the rich bears the same relation to the consumption of the poor as does the income of the rich to the wages of the poor. The colossal fortunes that have been built up here in recent years, partly at least through the favoring legislation of Congress, have made the monstrous injustice of our national system of taxation more and more apparent. An income tax will to some extent correct the evils of this system. It will require each citizen to contribute to the support of the state in proportion to the benefits received. Luch a tax will fall equally upon all, that is, according to ability and cannot, therefore, in any proper sense be called class legislation, it will not change the distribution of capítol or the material direction of industry and will have the advantage of never disturbing prices. It will also lead to a closer scrutiny of governmental expenditures and a I resulting -demand for reasonable economy in the carrying on of pubj lic business.