Press enter after choosing selection

Tax The Poor, Remove Taxes From The Rich

Tax The Poor, Remove Taxes From The Rich image
Parent Issue
Public Domain
OCR Text

A greatdeal has been wrilten or said on the tariff question, yet Congressman Mills in his speech on the subject last week had a forcible argument to make and put it in plain terms. He shows clearly that the class Iegïslation of the republicans favors the rich as against the poor. A brief extract from Mr. Mili:' speech is given helow, which we urge all of our readers to read. Mr. Mills began his remarles hy saying that, though the war had been over for a quarter of century, tarifF taxes were higher now than then, and averaged 47.10 per cent 011 Tiports. The incoine t.ix had been imposed to meet war expenses. It was gone. It was a tax on wealth, and the $72,000,000 annually realized from that source was swei.t away. But the war tax on clothint } on food, on implements of labor remaincd, and the war was still beirg prosecuted against the people - a fiscal war, exhausting in its demands, and every effort to remove or lowcr that taxaüon had been resisted and defeated. Congress had imposed a tax on incomes to help carry on the war, and there were 460,170 people in the United States in 1866 that had $707,000,000 of net income, upon which they were assessed a dut} which brought into the Treasury, ir 1866, $22,000,000. But the tax had g;one; t was a tax on wealth. Thert lad been a tax on insurance com oanies; it was gone. There had seen a tax on express companies; il was gone. There had been tax en Dank deposits and bank capital ; it was goi e Three hundred millicn dollars that had been paid by the wealth of the country had been swept away, and the burden of taxation had been made heavier, "as it had heen loaded upon the shouldei s of those who ha,d to support themelvcs and the government. Was a tax of 3 per cent to be paid out oí the pockets of the manufacturers ol blankets, a weight more enormous than the tax of 79 pc cent paid by the consumer on imported and domestic propucts? Was the tax of 3 per cent on more oppressive than the tax of 100 per cent on womcn's and children's dress goodsr Tet all these taxes on wealth had gone, and the gentlemen of the minority boasted that they had reduced taxes to the amount of $360.000,000, while the Democratie party had reduced it only a bagatelle. That Vvas :he splenaid column those gentlemen bad erected. All the tax on wealth lad passed away and all the burdens were now cast upon the shoulders of the laboring man. In, 18S3 taxation lad still further been reduced, and this magnificent shaft, which the party then in power had erected to commemorate its legislative wisdom and the benefïcence ol its laws, was crowned with a capstone - taking off he internat revenue tax on playing cards, and putting a tax of 20 per cent on Bibks. Did the manufacturers pay ligher wages because protection enabled them lo do so? No. Jay jiould was able to pay his bootblack $500 but he did not do it. He paid :he market price - he paid his nickel ike a little man. Higher wages are made by coal, steam and machinery, and higher wages meant lower cost of production. This accounted for the fact that free trade England paid higher wages than protection France and Germany, andyet controlled the world's market.


Ann Arbor Argus
Old News